Our most beloved engine (not) Units seems is on the verge of killing
itself!

Well it started off, with getting an EA Ceo in who was a heavy driver
for on demand payments and microtransactions in EA games. Needless to
say he sold a ton of Unity stocks before!!! announcing this.

Now he had the glorious idea of trying to charge its userbase (aka
developers not gamers) on a per game install base.
Which means one steam account 3 installs on 3 different machines on the
same account, the developer has to pay 3 times.
Or install and delete the game 10 times, the same.

On the question who should pay for this for services like Ps+ where the
games basically are sent in for a nominal monthly fee, the answer was
Sony (or Microsoft)
Needless to say, given that Unity as the cheap alternative which gets
the job done but not the best option, has a huge customer base of small
development studios and single developers, is not very amused by this.

This also unless they row back 100% could be the end for Unity, a small
studio cannot afford such conditions, given you can basically install
bomb a studio out of existence that way.
My guess is small studios either will move one level down to Godot,
which is opensource and also gets the job done but still lacks assets
(which could resolve itself soon)
or they will move one level up to Unreal, if they can afford the
learning curve and licenses, which are fairer but also more expensive
than Unity uset to be)

Either way, Unity even if they row back might be dead and if they dont
will be dead.

On 9/14/23 07:48, Werner P. wrote:
> Now he had the glorious idea of trying to charge its userbase (aka
> developers not gamers) on a per game install base.
> Which means one steam account 3 installs on 3 different machines on the
> same account, the developer has to pay 3 times.
> Or install and delete the game 10 times, the same.

I think Unity made a statement that it wouldn't count on the same
computer. Still does nothing if you delete the tracking file or use a vm

--
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 14:48:40 +0200, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Werner P. wrote:

>Now he had the glorious idea of trying to charge its userbase (aka
>developers not gamers) on a per game install base.
>Which means one steam account 3 installs on 3 different machines on the
>same account, the developer has to pay 3 times.
>Or install and delete the game 10 times, the same.

It's the current business model in gaming. Build a mountain of good will
and then turn around and get as much blood out of that giant stone as you
can, reducing it to rubble in the process.

American captialism is predatory and it sucks. Capitalism doesn't
necessarily have to be about maximizing profits. It's supposed to be
about building captial, for which long term strategies and relationships
are a valid and successful strategy, if less explosive and impressive for
the stock market.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

Am 14.09.23 um 15:26 schrieb candycanearter07:
> On 9/14/23 07:48, Werner P. wrote:
>> Now he had the glorious idea of trying to charge its userbase (aka
>> developers not gamers) on a per game install base.
>> Which means one steam account 3 installs on 3 different machines on
>> the same account, the developer has to pay 3 times.
>> Or install and delete the game 10 times, the same.
>
> I think Unity made a statement that it wouldn't count on the same
> computer. Still does nothing if you delete the tracking file or use a vm
>
Yes that was the first row back, does not help if you have three devices
running on for instance the same steam account the developer has to send
3 times the license fee to Unity!

Am 14.09.23 um 16:00 schrieb Zaghadka:
> It's the current business model in gaming. Build a mountain of good will
> and then turn around and get as much blood out of that giant stone as you
> can, reducing it to rubble in the process.
>
> American captialism is predatory and it sucks. Capitalism doesn't
> necessarily have to be about maximizing profits. It's supposed to be
> about building captial, for which long term strategies and relationships
> are a valid and successful strategy, if less explosive and impressive for
> the stock market.
Well we probably will soon see a Chapter 11 statement from Unity itself,
and it will go into business history books Osborne style unless they do
not stop it entirely and rethink their strategy. Even then they have
burned so many bridges that it will be hard to gain back the goodwill
especially given there are alternatives!

On 14/09/2023 13:48, Werner P. wrote:
> Our most beloved engine (not) Units seems  is on the verge of killing
> itself!
>
> Well it started off, with getting an EA Ceo in who was a heavy driver
> for on demand payments and microtransactions in EA games. Needless to
> say he sold a ton of Unity stocks before!!! announcing this.
>
> Now he had the glorious idea of trying to charge its userbase (aka
> developers not gamers) on a per game install base.
> Which means one steam account 3 installs on 3 different machines on the
> same account, the developer has to pay 3 times.
> Or install and delete the game 10 times, the same.
>
> On the question who should pay for this for services like Ps+  where the
> games basically are sent in for a nominal monthly fee, the answer was
> Sony (or Microsoft)
> Needless to say, given that Unity as the cheap alternative which gets
> the job done but not the best option, has a huge customer base of small
> development studios and single developers, is not very amused by this.
>
> This also unless they row back 100% could be the end for Unity, a small
> studio cannot afford such conditions, given you can basically install
> bomb a studio out of existence that way.
> My guess is small studios either will move one level down to Godot,
> which is opensource and also gets the job done but still lacks assets
> (which could resolve itself soon)
> or they will move one level up to Unreal, if they can afford the
> learning curve and licenses, which are fairer but also more expensive
> than Unity uset to be)
>
> Either way, Unity even if they row back might be dead and if they dont
> will be dead.

When I first read this story my initial reaction was it was one of those
we want to do something that we know people won't really like so let's
announce something even worse and when the back lash comes we'll claim
we've listened to our customers and then put forward what they really
wanted to do in first place and everyone is happy. Then I remembered who
was in-charge at Unity and thought, maybe this is what they really want
to do. Oh you want to reload a save, that'll be 50p please.

Saying that it also has a whiff of some exec's sitting in a room trying
to work out how to make more money. The problem being that they have a
very limited understanding of the people who give them money. That's
what seemed to happen at Wizards of The Coast with D&D who ended up
almost totally backing down after the reaction they got. Oh you've got a
module that is selling well. Thanks for that as we own under the license
agreement and are now going to sell it ourself.

What's going to happen, I don't know but I do find it hard to believe
that what they announced (even given some of it may just have been badly
communicated) is what they will end up doing.

On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 09:59:17 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:

>What's going to happen, I don't know but I do find it hard to believe
>that what they announced (even given some of it may just have been badly
>communicated) is what they will end up doing.

I'd like to believe this too, but I think we may both be underestimating
the forces of "dark triad" C-suite monsters.

So, I'm going with he doubles down and tanks the company. If not tank it,
then make it impossible for all those "little people" (indies) to use
Unity but compensate with the revenue stream from big developers.

But I think even the big devs will shy away from the mercurial, Darth
Vaderish quality of the license agreement. Fool me once...

Is Unity Technologies publicly traded? Maybe the stockholders or the
board will step in and take this numbnuts for a "walk in the swamp."

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 09:13:24 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 09:59:17 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
>wrote:

>Is Unity Technologies publicly traded? Maybe the stockholders or the
>board will step in and take this numbnuts for a "walk in the swamp."

Yes. It is also having financial issues. This has less to do with its
core business (licensing Unity to developers) being unprofitable, and
more to do with the company having gone on a massive buying spree over
the past few years (largely funded by vulture, erm, venture capital
monies. But this massive expansion - and economic changes - resulted
in its income stream not being sufficient to keeping the company
afloat, and these licensing shifts may be a hail-mary attempt to keep
the company afloat.

Which neither suggests a sudden reformation of the company backto
sainthood, nor speaks well for the long-term prospects of the
corporation. In fact, it is more likely we'll see more gouging in the
future.

The biggest sin, though, is the company's claims that its licensing is
retroactive. It isn't entirely without merit - TOS changes over the
past few years give Unity some cover - but it is on uncertain legal
grounds. Had Unity simply said, "we're changing the fee arrangement
for all /new/ games shipped after Jan 1 2024 that use Unity 2022.x or
later," they would have been on a lot more solid ground. It probably
wouldn't have cost them as much pushback from developers too (still
some, certainly, but not nearly as much). Pushing it back to include
any sales of any games that use Unity, regardless of when they were
released, was just stupid and greedy.

Especially since the "number of installs" that they base their
licensing fee on is based on Unity's own unaudited estimates... and by
their own admission, these numbers might even include /pirated/
copies.

The whole thing seems incredibly poorly thought out and reeks of
desperation... though whether that's too keep the company afloat or
boast share value (or just make the C-levels look good) isn't clear
yet.