• Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    165
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good God, what an arsehole.

    We apologize for the confusion…

    Confusion? No, there was no confusion. You announced a policy that was terrible, but there was nothing confusing about it, it was just stupid. I wasn’t at all confused you condescending twat, I fully understood what was being announced, as did everyone else, hence the backlash.

    • chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      1 year ago

      The article says it best:

      Developers remain critical of this latest statement from Unity. “There wasn’t any ‘confusion’,” said Trent Kusters of Jumplight Odyssey studio League of Geeks. “In fact, the exact opposite is the concerning issue here; That we all, very clearly, understood the devastating impact and anti-developer sentiment of your new pricing model far better than you ever did (or cared to) before rolling it out.”

    • Jojo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      We were confused about how much backlash there would be. We didn’t think it would hurt our bottom line this much. Sorry for the confusion.

    • letsgocrazy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      We apologise for you all being hysterical, and any Angst that may have caused.

      Twats.

      I don’t think Unity has any chance of healing while that moron is still there. He poisonous.

    • viperex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You know a significant number of devs will be OK with Unity’s statement and stick with them. Unity won’t learn their lesson. They’ll just be sneakier

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah ok. It doesn’t affect me, I won’t be using them, but what other people choose to do is their problem.

  • banazir@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do not believe their lies. Do not accept their token gestures. Abandon them. Let them burn. If you tolerate this your children will be next. Trust no one.

  • provomeister@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    1 year ago

    How to be a company in 2023

    1. Make a controversial move to please your shareholders without caring about your loyal customers.
    2. Don’t use a proper PR team, just use the same apology template on Twitter that everyone is using.
    3. People are angry… Could anyone seen that coming? 🙈
    4. Undo some changes without addressing the root problem.
    5. ???
    6. Profit (if by profit, you mean loose every inch of respect people had about you)

    Rinse & repeat, because we’re all humans and we can’t learn from our mistakes. Surely, this won’t happen again… right?

    • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why do you think it was a mistake? They put themselves in the spot where taking back just the most egregious fees will be considered a victory by the users while in reality the company basically got what they were hoping for.

      It’s like on a Turkish bazaar when you buy a fake jersey. He will ask for 800 lira and then you talk him down to 400 and feel like a winner, but the jersey is maybe worth 100.

      • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        It won’t be considered a victory. The developers have already lost Unity, and Unity has already lost its developers. Even if they undo everything, the trust is permanently damaged. What developer will dare to make a multi year, million dollar bet on Unity after this?

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

          Just so you know, this isn’t the first time Unity does this - last time they potentially enabled literal malware and forced privacy violating software on users and developers alike. Games using Unity still came out after that debacle.

      • provomeister@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sorry, I thought it was obvious I was sarcastic about their “mistake”. They want to be seen as the victims like they didn’t know in advance the outcome of their decisions. Backing down on the changes only to show something “less worst” is only a way to make the pill easier to swallow. Unity cannot be trusted anymore.

    • Thom Gray@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Companies don’t desire to be treated as people under the law, the 1886 Supreme Court decision that interpreted the 14th Amendment as corporate personhood was the most racist decision we still live with today. The amendment was written to grant freed slaves citizenship, but the same greedy capitalists that benefited from slavery used it to begin the neofeudaism that still enriches the few while causing suffering for the masses today and it’s only getting worse. Don’t “love” any corporation, they’re literally born out of the greatest evil in US history.

  • hardypart@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    1 year ago

    Developers remain critical of this latest statement from Unity. “There wasn’t any ‘confusion’,” said Trent Kusters of Jumplight Odyssey studio League of Geeks. “In fact, the exact opposite is the concerning issue here; That we all, very clearly, understood the devastating impact and anti-developer sentiment of your new pricing model far better than you ever did (or cared to) before rolling it out.”

    That’s the exact point. The apology is a joke.

    • r00ty@kbin.life
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Indeed. They had the whole chart showing exactly what would be paid by who. Their original post was designed not to be confusing and it wasn’t.

      • jballs@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        The confusion is that they want more money and are confused why developers don’t want to give them more money.

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Anything short of a perpetual, binding agreement to never do this type of shit again is nothing more than “we’re sorry if being awesome made you idiots mad”. Get fucked.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wasn’t it just six months ago or so that Dungeons & Dragons was going through a similar debacle? That they can change the terms of the license post release is insane.

      • vivadanang@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        1 year ago

        2023 has been a bang up year for attempted enshittification. DnD, Twitter, Reddit, now Unity. It’s a clown bus of failure.

    • variaatio@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Ahemm as I understand the previously license did have a “we don’t change this license on you” clause, which they removed shortly before this change. As I understand there is atleast possibility, that some existing customer developers might upon being pressed take unity to court over “you said you wouldn’t change the license fundamentally without our consent, we had a deal”.

      What the exact language of that clause and would it hold in court challenge, I don’t know. Just heard one interviewed developer say something to affect of “hey they did have we don’t change the deal clause, which they sneak removed on pretty recent license update”.

      I atleast as business would not agree to deal of “yeah we have a deal, except this deal allows us to change the deal however we want”.

      It might mean having to do time limited or project limited deals, since on otherhand no provider would agree to “we have no room to change deal ever”. I would atleast in case of say game development expect clause for example “any fundamental license change must have 2 year announcement time for existing customer.” Such clauses are very common in “on-going basis contracts and deals”. Heck international treaties use such clauses “If you want to leave this treaty, you must give other treaty parties 1/2/3/5 year notice and for the duration of that notice period you are still bound by the treaty”.

      So I would guess: If this ends ugly, there will be lawsuits over was the license change contractually legal, were the possibble change notices clear enough upon the main change being in itself legal and for example was some jurisdictions fair and good behavior clauses of national contract law itself violated. Was enough notice time given etc. Since one cant make any contrac or contract change whatever one likes, business contracts are always subservient to local contract law regulating what can be agreed, how and what amounts to stuff like informed consent, how contract terms can be changed and regulation on prohibition of underhanded or deceptive business practices.

    • Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The ONLY acceptable apology at this point is a complete roll back and a full announcement of the direction they plan to take the company in for the next 5+ years.

      They’ve absolutely lost the trust of devs, designers and hobbyists.

  • stealth_cookies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    This seems to be a case of start with a horrible plan that they know will make everyone angry only to roll it back to a plan that still sucks but isn’t quite as bad to try to reduce the sting. The thing is, I don’t think their customers are that stupid.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      They underestimate their customers. They keep forgetting they’re business to business, not business to customer.

      Developers are other businesses, even if they’re a business with an employee of one, although often they are small but not tiny teams. The relationship that they have with unity is a business relationship and it can end at any time should that relationship cease to be productive, for we don’t have random undying loyalty to one platform, that wouldn’t be financially sensible.

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

        Good luck porting over a 10 year old game you released on Unity to some other engine in such a way that your overall costs are lower than just sticking with it and eating the fees.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          For a 10-year-old game I probably wouldn’t (unless it was Minecraft level popular) but for a 1-year-old game I might, and for a game I haven’t developed yet I definitely will.

          If the game is old not being played that much anymore then the fees probably are not going to hit me that much but if it’s old and popular it’ll be a big financial hit.

    • phillaholic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hear this accusation a lot, but how many times does it work out for the company? Maybe the second plan doesn’t get any press and that’s proving your point?

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

        People keep comparing this to how WotC had to give up more gorund than they started with after announcing their DnD bullshit. As someone who plays Magic I can tell you they do and get away with stuff like that multiple times a year and the DnD thing was a rare exception of people holding them to account. They’ve shown no signs of having changed things either.

        Businesses who act like this know that in the long run they get very slightly more profit out of it than they lose from the times people stand up to them.

      • stealth_cookies@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh, I don’t think it often works out. But a business person can make the data show what they want to do while ignoring what is likely to happen.

  • GrayBackgroundMusic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    Eh, he said the word apologize, but that’s not a full apology. All they essentially did was acknowledge that they noticed the public was mad at them. A full apology includes that acknowledgment and then what they did wrong and how they’re going to try to prevent it again. I doubt that last point will happen.

      • Kushan@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Step 1 in this case should be to step down as CEO. That’s the only way for Unity to have a chance at recovering from this.

  • morriscox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What’s to keep someone from using a botnet to install tens or hundreds of thousands of installations?

  • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    CEO needs to step down after this

    They’ve burned so much trust in leadership after this, and Unity is now going to be known as a sketchy platform to develop for since they’ve done really scummy monetization policies over night. This is extremely important if you’re going to be pouring millions in budget for game development in that engine.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is not a CEO thing. The board asked for this. Look it up. There are some of the worse out of touch executives, which includes owners of scam software. Unity is done for, changing the CEO will not change a thing since the new CEO will be asked to do the same or worse things by the board, all in the name of profit.

    • letsgocrazy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The only possible way forward for Unity is for him to go.

      He has a pattern of maverick pricing ideas that are totally at odds with what the community will tolerate.

      As long as he’s around, there’s no knowing what else he’ll come out with.

      A percentage of the profits; it’s a classic for a reason.

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

      If the value of Unity tanks after this, wouldn’t surprise me if MiHoYo or someone bought them just to not risk their huge projects that are currently using Unity.

      For context, MiHoYo runs all their games on Unity (Genshin Impact, Honkai Star Rail, etc), and their net worth ($16 billion) is more than Unity’s itself ($13 billion).

      Tencent also has a huge chunk of games that run in Unity, and their market value is too massive to even utter.

      • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think they can buy Unity, but I do know those games use a custom version of Unity that’s heavily modified. That version should still fall under the old license. Also you know they have the money to sue the hell out of Unity. It’d be cool if they moved their games to Godot, but I really doubt that’d happen lol.

  • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Genshin is one of the biggest games using Unity right now, and I doubt Mihoyo would want to take that risk of suddenly having to pay millions of dollars for no reason.

    • doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Giving people an exception for using their ad service shows they’re happy to apply the rules unequally. I expect a company that is a big litigation risk like mihiyo will be happily exempt from the runtime fee

    • Jeanschyso@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I install it every 6 months or so to check if android controller support has been added. I expect many other people do the same. It’s just a drop in the bucket, but that bucket eventually fills up

    • chaos_observer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      From what I know, Genshin uses a highly modified Unity engine. But whether they will still be affected by this move is a huge question mark.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        If it’s built off of unity then it’s built off of unity. It doesn’t matter how much you add to it. The terms still apply.

        • Walop@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Laws and terms are for the poor. I am sure big players like miHoYo, Niantic and Game Freak (Pokemon Go/Scarler/Violet) already have their own agreements and would not be affected by this.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You think a Chinese company would give a single shit about this?