I think it’s totally fair. I don’t know if this is the right take here but I think we as gamers have limited power in this situation as we’re not really Unity’s customers. It’s the developers who have the power to move away from or limit their use of Unity and pressure them to change this decision especially as good alternatives exist already in the market. I know this doesn’t help for existing games but hopefully they can at least get Unity not to make these fees retroactive, seems legally questionable to me as a layman at least.
Maybe one easy thing us gamers can do is to block unity domains at the network level. I’m not sure how they track installs but I’m guessing it must include some kind of phone home.
I’m inclined to agree with you on this. I have made it a point to remove wishlisted games that were Unity based, at least for now anyway. But yes, I think this is going to more be with the devs to move away from Unity before anything will actually change.
Avoiding unity games hurts the game Devs far more then unity. Even if they move away from it for their next game they might not be able to for currently released ones.
I know this doesn’t help for existing games but hopefully they can at least get Unity not to make these fees retroactive, seems legally questionable to me as a layman at least.
I’ve yet to see a coherent explanation for how Unity could even legally do that. As far as I know their previous Terms of Service did not include any mention of “also we can tack on additional fees whenever we want even for products that have already been developed” or “by agreeing to this version of the Terms of Service you permanently agree to any future versions of the Terms of Service”, and even if it did I highly doubt that would be enforceable. They’re trying to retroactively apply a fee structure that wasn’t agreed to.
It’s also telling that (according to Ars Technica) they specifically claim that this new fee structure isn’t “royalties” and thus not subject to any protections afforded to royalty agreements. Methinks the lady doth protest too much and all that.
Unity licenses are sold as a subscription. When the subscription runs out, you either have to renew it and accept the new terms, or lose the license and stop distributing your game.
Okay, so even assuming that’s the case, “stopping distribution” is different than “we’re gonna charge you for installs of copies you’ve already sold”. Still not seeing how that’s legal.
Naturally they only get to charge for already-sold copies if you accept the new terms that include the charges. As for how it’s legal to include those charges in the new terms to begin with, I guess you’d have to ask a contract lawyer. Presumably Unity’s own lawyers are convinced they can get away with it, or they wouldn’t have done it.
Maybe one easy thing us gamers can do is to block unity domains at the network level. I’m not sure how they track installs but I’m guessing it must include some kind of phone home.
Consider that pirated installs are now not just lost revenue but ongoing expenses as Unity charges the developer for an install.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programming@programming.dev
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person’s post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you’re posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don’t want to watch videos
I think it’s totally fair. I don’t know if this is the right take here but I think we as gamers have limited power in this situation as we’re not really Unity’s customers. It’s the developers who have the power to move away from or limit their use of Unity and pressure them to change this decision especially as good alternatives exist already in the market. I know this doesn’t help for existing games but hopefully they can at least get Unity not to make these fees retroactive, seems legally questionable to me as a layman at least.
Maybe one easy thing us gamers can do is to block unity domains at the network level. I’m not sure how they track installs but I’m guessing it must include some kind of phone home.
I’m inclined to agree with you on this. I have made it a point to remove wishlisted games that were Unity based, at least for now anyway. But yes, I think this is going to more be with the devs to move away from Unity before anything will actually change.
Avoiding unity games hurts the game Devs far more then unity. Even if they move away from it for their next game they might not be able to for currently released ones.
I’ve yet to see a coherent explanation for how Unity could even legally do that. As far as I know their previous Terms of Service did not include any mention of “also we can tack on additional fees whenever we want even for products that have already been developed” or “by agreeing to this version of the Terms of Service you permanently agree to any future versions of the Terms of Service”, and even if it did I highly doubt that would be enforceable. They’re trying to retroactively apply a fee structure that wasn’t agreed to.
It’s also telling that (according to Ars Technica) they specifically claim that this new fee structure isn’t “royalties” and thus not subject to any protections afforded to royalty agreements. Methinks the lady doth protest too much and all that.
Unity licenses are sold as a subscription. When the subscription runs out, you either have to renew it and accept the new terms, or lose the license and stop distributing your game.
Okay, so even assuming that’s the case, “stopping distribution” is different than “we’re gonna charge you for installs of copies you’ve already sold”. Still not seeing how that’s legal.
Naturally they only get to charge for already-sold copies if you accept the new terms that include the charges. As for how it’s legal to include those charges in the new terms to begin with, I guess you’d have to ask a contract lawyer. Presumably Unity’s own lawyers are convinced they can get away with it, or they wouldn’t have done it.
it might be cdp.cloud.unity3d.com. i have this domain try to call home but my pi-hole catches it
Consider that pirated installs are now not just lost revenue but ongoing expenses as Unity charges the developer for an install.
Good pirates firewall their loot anyway.