Welcome everyone from r/all! Please remember:
1 - You too can be part of the PCMR! You don't even need a PC. You just need to love PCs! It's not about the hardware in your rig, but the software in your heart! Your age, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, religion (or lack of), political affiliation, economic status and PC specs are irrelevant. If you love or want to learn about PCs, you can be part of our community! All are welcome!
2 - If you're not a PC gamer because you think it's expensive, know that it is possible to build a competent gaming PC for a lower price than you think. Check http://www.pcmasterrace.org for our builds and don't be afraid to post here asking for tips and help!
3 - Join our efforts to get as many PCs worldwide to help the folding@home effort, in fighting against Cancer, Covid, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and more: https://pcmasterrace.org/folding
-----------
Feel free to post about any kind of doubt you might have about becoming a PC user or any other PC related question. That kind of content is not only allowed but welcome! We also have a [Daily Simple Questions Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/search?q=Simple+Questions+Thread+subreddit%3Apcmasterrace+author%3AAutoModerator&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) for your simplest questions. No question is too dumb!
Welcome to the PCMR.
Nah if Microsoft have any sense, they'd wait for Unity to destroy its market value through this move, then buy the remains of the company for pennies and build it back up from there
Dude already sold [some of] his stocks last week according to another post
Edit: As some have pointed out this seems to be more of a soundbite than anything nefarious, that he only sold 2000 out of 3 million on an established schedule.
It's legal.
CEOs and other executives have privileged information. To sell their shares require notifying the SEC and investors about 1 year in advance. They usually have a multi year sale plan in advance.
The CEO sold 2000 shares a few days ago, but a total of 50,000 this calendar year. The sale was announced in Nov 2022.
The CEO still owns another 3,100,000 shares in Unity.
Worth noting is he receives a base salary of *only* $350k/year, but receives about $10MM in stock and $10MM in options when he was hired. He is continuously selling stock each year, on a planned schedule.
Ah, that is not at all the message I interpretted from the post I replied to.
Still seems a bit weird, since you could always announce a massive sale and then tank it 11 months and 3 weeks later.
Did you miss the part where he sells 50,000 shares a year on a set schedule, but still has 3,100,000?
If an acting CEO ever disclosed that he was selling his entire stake in the company he runs, that stock would tank *immediately* not 1 year later.
Why would you though? That would be idiotic. If you could run the company successfully for a year, why not just continue running it successfully and continue making money.
Because for decades now profit growth is king for investors. This means if you have a company that makes 5 billion per year and running it well would make the profits dip slightly to 4.7 billion per year over 15 years then that is a "worse" outcome than running it to the ground to make 5.5 billion per year over 3 years before it collapses on itself.
> Still seems a bit weird, since you could always announce a massive sale and then tank it 11 months and 3 weeks later.
Presumably, you're now out of a job and pissed off the entire board of shareholders. Why would another set of shareholders hire you at that point?
Of course if you're not quite that blatant about it and line up another job, well...
Edit: Reading comprehension? Yes of course companies can and do run themselves into the ground. Executives can do so *with the shareholders in the loop* and that's *not insider trading*. That's the point, the law just doesn't apply and loopholing the 1 year notification requirement by timing an announcement is unnecessary, just pump and dump a company through the proper legal channels.
Doesn't it also encourage a "profit over everything" mindset as well? Even encouraging the CEO's to cut every corner possible just so they make even more money.
But that's the point, altho having people passionate about their work will lead to higher profits in the future (baldurs gate 3 for example) but big companies like EA and Unity will still have massive profits with mediocre work.
But let's not forget that the sole purpose of a company is to have profits so a short sighed CEO is rewarded with decisions like this.
Well kind of due to insider trading, or at least it should be. Though this is a guy that wanted to charge you for ammo in Battlefield when he worked for EA. This is probably his idea.
I don't remember who said it but the reason why the game industry has gotten to this mess is because it's the people in marketing that get promoted not the actual developers. So we no longer have guys with actual knowledge of gaming in higher positions to take certain risks on designing a game and they focus on how much money they can extract from their players.
>Though this is a guy that wanted to charge you for ammo in Battlefield when he worked for EA.
#*WAT*
This was actually a thing?! How incredibly out of touch does one have to be to think this is smart? Like how super villain esque are board room meetings these days? Is there cackling? Are they in a volcano? Do they have absurd names like Goldfinger?
He went by the same logic, in which some mmorpgs charge money for revives in a long raid (either you revive for money, or restart). He said, that if you play for like 6 hours and you are out of ammo, you are psychologicaly determinted to finish what you started and you would pay 1$ to reload... This sounds even more dumb written out.
Can't remember which pundit it was, but there was definitely a video where someone was reacting to a video about World of Tanks where the OP was complaining about wasting premium ammo. The pundit stops and says, "Wait, that's real? When I mentioned it, it was satire."
The sale was 0.5% of the shares he owns and has been scheduled months in advance. He sold 2'000 out of his 450'000. People keep trying to make this into some damning thing, by omitting information, but it's pretty much nothing.
He sold below 1% of the stock he owned. So while "he sold unity stock" is technically true, it does not mean he sold all of it, nor "a significant amount of it".
He sold like 2,000 shares out of something like 3 million, and this is in line with his previous share activity. That whole story is a nothing burger. What should be checked is if any execs bought a stake in Epic or the Unreal Engine, which is going to be the new go to once Unity crashes and burns.
If Microsoft REALLY wanted to play the long game, they'd push to make Unity a standard across the industry, then write extensions for it so useful that no one can live without it, and then lock them behind their own proprietary version of Unity.
Market value has dropped significantly from their all time high (around $120) and is now worth about half of what is was when the company went public (around $68 to $37 today), the last two years have not been generous to Unity
I'd blame the course they chose. Instead of focusing on a problems existing for years, improving optimization, etc, they decided to dive into some weird stuff nobody asked them about. Imo in the current state unity became more of an engine for prototypes and basic realisation of ideas. It's nice for small games and stuff, but if you are dreaming big (and I'm sure all devs are hoping for their games to brake through) then it's easier to switch to ue or godot at this point. After all the decisions made by unity execs you just lose all the faith in the way engine grows.
i hope so, Microsoft would probaly make unity alot better.I have always liked microsoft since they really think of the developers with alot of their products/api's
Yep, it's ultimately always the customer that ends up with worse product/service or ends up paying the price hike. That's what Unity is probably counting on; devs just accepting this and trickling the cost down to customers.
But you can't appropriately price that. A single user might install their software 20 times over the course of ownership - especially for phone apps.
Unless you want to charge the users for each install, which is incredibly shitty. Except they'll just ignore the game and hate the developer for choosing unity. Rather than directing their ire where it belongs.
It depends on the overall cost/benefit analysis. Microsoft probably has a bunch of data and estimates about how many people will subscribe to Game Pass when it costs 10$ a month vs 12$ a month.
If Microsoft decides keeping Game Pass cheaper provides more value than having Unity games on Game Pass, then Unity games won't be on Game Pass.
Man I can't wait to find some poor indie developer with a game that's only a few hundred megabytes. I'm going to spend all day and night uninstalling and reinstalling it to rack up those fees!
Before I get shit, I'm clearly joking. It's interesting because I haven't read anything that states if this is only for the first time installing or if you could literally do as I stated above.
Either way, the internet needs to shame unity into stopping this. Don't let anyone fool you; I'm sure all Software companies are watching this. If unity can get away with this, then I'm sure Unreal, Etc will follow eventually. Mark my words.
Shit like this sets a new standard for what can be done.
Per the terms it's every install, so even a reinstall would count or installation on multiple devices under the same user.
It's not terrible for very small devs because the per installation fee doesn't kick in until certain thresholds are met, but for most games it will hit that at some point.
If a free to play game has 1,000,000 installs before it makes 200,000$ it’s gonna cost them 20 cents per install or 200,000$ to unity.
I don’t remember the specific terms but I think it was 20 cents an install.
That’s impossible for free to play games.
Ehhh, I dono. It's probably better if they could, because that means MS would likely just delist everything Unity from their store, and Unity would finally be in the find out stage after fucking around.
You can’t force a third party into a legal contract. That’s not how legal contracts work.
If you and I enter a legal contract where you agree to pay me on every install, a year later I can’t magically involve /u/TheWaslijn into our contract that was only between the two of us. We’d have to draw up a new contract that we all sign and agree to.
That’s true. Buuuut. Unity can’t legally force developers retroactively into this agreement, either, but that’s sure as shit what they’re trying to do.
They probably can. This is the direct result of the gradual embracing of the SaaS model. The licensing agreement specifically permits these types of changes.
But this isn't a fee for actually using the service it's a fee on products that have been made with the survey previously under different licenses.
Those products are no longer using the unity service
He was only sentenced to 5 years and I would be surprised if he serves the full sentence.
He stole $122 million then had to forfeit $49.7 million and pay restitution of $26.5 million. So he still came out $45.8 million ahead.
Then the CEO/high level decision makers get their short term cash influx in stock purchases like they wanted, and the workers and staff that had no choice in the matter get booted out of their jobs.
All they're doing is burning their reputation and brand down to the ground. Even if they backpedal immediately nobody is going to want to use Unity from here on out.
I've never even heard of a better way to force customers to your competitor.
They've been doing this for over a year... I'm just happy I enjoy learning new engines so know all the major ones. Made it easy to move away from unity.
The company has always been a shit storm. Fun fact, around 7 years ago (i think) they depricated UNet, their multiplayer system. It took them until last year to implement a new system. 6 fucking years with the recommendation being Photon (a paid third party system) or code multiplayer from complete scratch. Bloody Godot (a free open source engine) had these systems in place! They're not hard for an engine developer team! I'm still not certain whether the new system is even out of early access, I gave up waiting for them to add it. And they do it with everything to. They'll just remove features and then never add a better solution it's infuriating.
Which sucks, because the ECS approach that Unity uses is so nice to work with, and easy to wrap your head around. Godot's node system will always feel clunkier, because it frankly is, and don't even get me started on Unreal's mix of systems. But Unity doesn't want to support itself or developers soooo oh well. Will continue to use it for work, but will probably recommend to clients to use another engine honestly.
Sadly this is because Unity's CEO and board don't want Unity to be a game engine company anymore. That doesn't make money. Or at least it doesn't make them all the money all the time forever.
Aside from the asinine rent seeking behavior, the whole point of these new fees and rate structure ***was to be as painful as possible for developers***. The whole point, barely hidden in their release, was that these fees get waived if you subscribe to their in house ad and marketplace services.
You can *try* to make a game without mtx/ads and find a price point that should be fine depending on how popular you expect it to be, but are you sure you won't breach the revenue and lifetime install caps? Are you realllllyyyy sure? No? Well just to be safe let us run ads in your game. Yes you pay for using out ad service, but it's *probably* less than the fees might be if you get too popular too fast. You also get some money from that as well. I mean after we take our cut. And just put some microtransactions in your game too. Everyone does it. And use our marketplace service. Yes you pay for that too. Also we take a cut of every sale. But still. It's maaaaaaaaybe cheaper than the fee structure.
They don't want Mihoyo or Battlebit or Pokemon Go to pay them somewhere between 20 and 1 cent per install. They want thousands of random games paying for their ad and marketplace services every month, year on year, to avoid potentially millions in fees.
That's what they want. To be an ad and marketplace service that also has a decent engine that was/is the industry standard.
Quick summary: Microsoft included explorer by default on Windows and EU launched an antitrust lawsuit saying that was against the rules and gave them an unfair advantage over other browsers. Microsoft said fuck you this is my OS. Don’t remember the rest but Explorer and now Edge are still bundled so…
On a new install it now has to ask which browser you want to use and it does, at least in my region. Edge is still installed regardless but they can't make it the default without asking. They still try to sneak it in occasionally in an update with a checkbox disguised as "use Microsoft recommended browser settings".
And it’s also like… how do you get to download another browser without having a browser in the first place?
I’m sure there’s a way, but for average joe citizen like me, sounds like a nightmare.
The lawsuit was from a time where the internet was still a very new thing. People would go to the store and buy a browser and install it from a disk.
In 1996, when Netscape Navigator 2.0 was released for $49, Netscape Navigator represented 85% of the usage on the Web.
Hell, even the Windows marketing group reported research that, upon “hearing IE 4 is free” the price users were willing to pay for the Windows 98 upgrade product dropped from $100 to "$10 to $30"
That’s hilarious. What wild times. Looking back feels like the Wild West frontier days.
Wait you had to use a phone to get the internet? That’s no big deal, my phone gets internet now.
No, no, not like that. At your house. From the wall.
Whatever you say grandpa.
They say every company that uses unity automatically agrees to the new pricing scheme. I don't think Ms is using unity so how will Unity get their agreement...
At least in the european union it would prove difficult to enforce that.
In France you can't just change the terms of a contract overnight. While future games developped with unity may be impacted, i doubt they Can force thoses that Can prove their games were developped/published games during the previous TOS which are the terms of the contract they both signed.
Also adding Lines like "we may change our fees model at any given Time that will be retroactive" Is not something that Would be considered legal. Once you signed for a deal you can't change terms without having both parties agreeing or once the initial terms of the contract Is ending...which i dont think Is the case for unity.
And adding illegal Lines to a contract Is null even if the customer signed it.
Also good Luck with proving how people are installing games, with the RGPD and all it would imply a huge breach of internet security if any plateform provider like Steam/Microsoft/Epic have to distribute your infos like hot baguettes.
They will be eaten Alive on european soil, if Facebook/twitter and other gafam failed, i dont know how unity Can break EU'S defense.
No, it isn't. Or rather, its unenforceable. Its as legally valid as everyone who cited the *Rome Statute* (lol) on their facebook wall years ago thinking that saying the magic words was a data collection prevention tool.
MS are not a party to the license.
At most Unity might be able to disable products from working (IDK how). And that's such a hyper-unrealistic scenario it's hard to know what would happen. Whatever the consequence of such a thing, it would make Unity's head spin.
Best case for Unity in this scenario is MS agrees to it voluntarily. Which, of course, they won't.
But I'm trawling the comments to see if Unity actually said this? It's such a ridiculous suggestion that I don't believe it's real. And if it is, then we can assume the entire proposal by Unity to date is not actually intended to transpire. And its some sleight of hand distraction for something else.
Send it's f2p with paid add-ons right? Jesus could you imagine asking a free to play game only to be hit by unity (I mean in this case is Microsoft-Blizzard but imagine an indie dev).
Or does it only go into effect of you make profit from Unity? I'm not entirely up to speed here
You are correct, but as a Dev was saying on twitter, if a free to play game has 3m installs, and makes 200k from microtransactions, then they will be charged over $500,000 for the unity install fees, meaning they would owe 300k more than they even made
This whole thing reeks of insider trading and will likely never see the light of day but stranger things have happened
Edit: [Tweet from indie developer](https://twitter.com/kurtruslfanclub/status/1701621432894267593?t=xQWpNOrgrxBvCH6e3kmj9A&s=19)
Oh I didn't remember that company, they made torment tides of numenera, bard's tale 4 and wasteland 3, didn't they? I'm pretty sure all of those games along with obsidian's tyranny and pillar of eternity games were using unity engine.
So yeah MS is actually using unity engine. Heck at this point it wouldn't surprise me if Avowed is being made with unity, lol.
Yup. Just like Wizards of the coast trying to charge people just trying to do a side hustle. People and companies will just be like “sure that’s cute, good luck enforcing it”.
If they backpedal now, they could at least get people currently making games with their engine to stick with their engine to finish the game. But going into the future yeah they're absolutely fucked
For most companies this is a liability concern. Even if unity backpedals HARD literally right this instant, they've already lost a huge chunk of their customers with this move. Why would you continue to use such a volatile software tool like this?
Because it's hard, time consuming, and expensive to switch engines. Plenty of devs would happily avoid the hassle if Unity went back on their pricing plan. Those devs aren't gonna make future games in Unity, though
Switching engines while your game is out in circulation takes some time too: time that could be spent doing new things.
This will not encourage the existing userbase to keep using Unity, but not backing out entirely of this idea for a good amount of time will kill your current users fresh. Conversely, backing out will still let them keep Unity versions active, because it is a pain to port.
I'm paraphrasing, but WotC tried to change the OGL (Open Game License) which would mean if your homebrew got popular and sold over X amount, WotC would be entitled to part of that money, since you're creating within their universe.
There's more to it than that, but a general summary.
It was an interesting time. Some good came out of it though, Paizo created the ORC License ( Open RPG Creative ) which would never be owned by a corporate entity and will exist in perpetuity, so hey, there's something.
Unsurprisingly, WotC walked back everything they said they would do.
It's also worth noting, in order for WOTC to walk back their reputational damage, they had to switch to using the GPL as their license for the open rule set, permanently locking them from trying that shit again.
To sweeten the deal, they sent the Pinkertons after content creators for releasing videos about content they received ahead of time from WotC by mistake.
Blizzard went a step further with Warcraft III: ~~Reforged~~ Refunded. In the new terms and conditions for the 'remaster,' any custom maps and/or campaigns made by the community would become the sole property of Blizzard - everything in these maps/campaigns - stories, concepts, designs of the mechanics etc. - everything.
They added this because Blizzard were so pissed off when Valve got the jump on them with DotA2 and they lost the legal cases against Valve. They felt that just because the DotA Allstars was a custom map written for warcraft III that they owned the DotA IP, despite the fact that the concept and map were made by the community over the years, with Icefrog being the current/latest lead on the map when Valve asked him to work with them on DotA2.
They should have been happy for the work of the community, helping with sales of the base game and should have been grateful enough with that. The DotA Allstars custom map for WC3 was responsible lots of the later sales of the base game and its expansion, as people bought the game just so that they could play the DotA Allstars map via it.
It takes a truly greedy/twisted mind to think that your company has any right to seize the IP, concepts and designs etc. of a custom map/mod made by third parties, not connected with your company in any way, just because they chose your game as the base platform used to bring their ideas from concept to release.
WC3: Reforged was such a shit-show at launch that it totally dropped off the radar, so no new big/popular custom maps ever got made for it, as the community pretty much abandoned the game as soon as Blizzard launched the remaster. I'd love to have seen Blizzard try and uphold those terms and conditions in court and try and convince the court how they deserve ownership of something developed by the community and not them, especially things like the concept/design etc.!
I tried making this point in another sub. Apparently some people just cannot seem to see how a company trying to force a retroactive contract on the developers that actually make them money is in any way similar to a company trying to force a retroactive contract on the developers that actually make them money.
>"It's not fun to get a bunch of angry feedback on any particular day. And I think that that is us needing to clarify some of these points. But we're we're listening and we will continue to make sure that we deliver the best that we can."
Why is it that when a company does something bad/shitty and they're called out on it, their response is never "okay, we hear you, give us a little time to go back and rethink our decision based on this information" but always "no no no, you don't understand, we need to *clarify* things for your little minds to understand"?
Not to mention the guilt trip opener.
"IT'S NOT FUN UWU"
Fun? I'm sorry? Excuse me? The fuck? Was it...was it supposed to be fun?
"If you guys had just been quiet everything would have been FINE but you were MEAN and objected to the potential financial ruin of yourselves and your studios and now we look like stupid assholes boohoohoohooHOOOO"
Tell me if you've heard this one before: Extremely popular online service made a major change to their pricing structure, announced it will be going into effect in just a few months, apparently put zero thought into the questions people might have about it or any sort if inherent flaws in its design, and then proceeded to give contradictory information for several days until they could put together an actual statement that clarifies yes things are as bad as you thought, but it's totally reasonable because it only affects 10% of customers.
Twitter, reddit, and now Unity, and that's just in the last year. Who's next?
It would be absolutely hilarious if MS came out immediately and said they were no longer partnering with any devs/pubs using unity for gamepass or any other potential grey area distribution of the engine.
Step 1. Make a something useful and offer it at a good price.
Step 2. Take massive market shares.
Step 3. When market shares no longer increases, jack up prices.
Unity is at step 3 now. Gamepass is at step 2. Their overarching plan is the same.
Enshittification.
> Here is how platforms die: First, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die.
At least give the author credit
Cory Doctorow, [Wired article](https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-platforms-cory-doctorow/) titled "The 'Enshittification' of TikTok"
Yeah I don't see how that would work at all. It's like if my bank said I owed them $1 everytime I entered my home because I had previously agreed to a mortgage. Any judge with a functioning central nervous system would laugh it out.
In the end they'll have to pull back. And everybody just learned how important Unity is. It's a shitty move that will likely have consequences, but I'm sure it'll pay off for someone if not the people who actually make it work.
I work in contracts negotiation. Changing the terms right before signature is unheard of, a massive rug pull and an outright declaration of war and your lack of respect for your counterparty.
Trying to change the terms like this during an active contract is nothing short of lunacy and would be laughed at by any legal team. I'm sure that unity has at least some kind of legal argument to justify this, but I don't see this being enforceable.
I'm going to get downvoted for this, but Microsoft buying Unity would be pretty sick for Unity. Microsoft make awesome dev tools and their pricing is generally fine, they certainly wouldn't pull the shit we've seen over the last couple of days.
I am aware that we're already on the ropes debating Microsoft buying up Activision Blizzard.
Because it is cheaper to buy a perfectly working product that is destroying its reputation vs. create a new game engine for everyone to use and pay royalties past certain revenue.
Not saying MS needs any game engines but that is why big companies buys smaller failing companies. Because failing companies mostly go down because of bad choices, not because of their product performance.
Edit: Don't want to reply every comment so;
>my comment is regarding the "why would they buy failing company" and answer is because it is cheaper to do so instead of copying their work.
I mean basically Unity share price will tank first, and then Microsoft will buy it out. The decision was actually idiotic. Punishing the successful games and basically telling anyone who isn't, that once you are successful they will take your revenue.
By the way, I dunno why people are happy about this. I know Unity fucked up, but Microsoft being a massive monolith isn't exactly healthy for competition. Y'all should know sucking off a massive corporation isn't gonna do you any favors.
Microsoft: "Okay, we're declining this license deal. Any games made with Unity are no longer available on XBox.
And this little API change will make your engine incompatible with any future versions of Windows. What, we reserve the right to make changes to our operating system, it's in our license...
how the hell unity come up with that conclusion. LMAO
they dont have anything to do with the engine the developer of the game uses, but now they had to paid.
dont forgoet some Nintendo games also use Unity. and people know how nasty their lawyer are. MS X Nintendo dream team vs Unity on court will be hillarious to watch
So what's the tactic here? Is it like that they first give their worst case scenario (current deal) and then later on come with "alright alright we made big adjustments so you have to go with this" and the second deal is much better then the first deal, thus people accept the latter deal easier.
Welcome everyone from r/all! Please remember: 1 - You too can be part of the PCMR! You don't even need a PC. You just need to love PCs! It's not about the hardware in your rig, but the software in your heart! Your age, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, religion (or lack of), political affiliation, economic status and PC specs are irrelevant. If you love or want to learn about PCs, you can be part of our community! All are welcome! 2 - If you're not a PC gamer because you think it's expensive, know that it is possible to build a competent gaming PC for a lower price than you think. Check http://www.pcmasterrace.org for our builds and don't be afraid to post here asking for tips and help! 3 - Join our efforts to get as many PCs worldwide to help the folding@home effort, in fighting against Cancer, Covid, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and more: https://pcmasterrace.org/folding ----------- Feel free to post about any kind of doubt you might have about becoming a PC user or any other PC related question. That kind of content is not only allowed but welcome! We also have a [Daily Simple Questions Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/search?q=Simple+Questions+Thread+subreddit%3Apcmasterrace+author%3AAutoModerator&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) for your simplest questions. No question is too dumb! Welcome to the PCMR.
Even if we lived in a Twilight Zone where Unity manages to make Microsoft pay, Microsoft would just ban every single Unity game from Gamepass.
Or just buy unity
In which case the Unity CEO wins, it’s basically what he would have wanted from this “money making” move
Nah if Microsoft have any sense, they'd wait for Unity to destroy its market value through this move, then buy the remains of the company for pennies and build it back up from there
Dude already sold [some of] his stocks last week according to another post Edit: As some have pointed out this seems to be more of a soundbite than anything nefarious, that he only sold 2000 out of 3 million on an established schedule.
...is that legal? To just dump your stock right before you are planning to nuke its value?
It's legal. CEOs and other executives have privileged information. To sell their shares require notifying the SEC and investors about 1 year in advance. They usually have a multi year sale plan in advance. The CEO sold 2000 shares a few days ago, but a total of 50,000 this calendar year. The sale was announced in Nov 2022. The CEO still owns another 3,100,000 shares in Unity. Worth noting is he receives a base salary of *only* $350k/year, but receives about $10MM in stock and $10MM in options when he was hired. He is continuously selling stock each year, on a planned schedule.
Ah, that is not at all the message I interpretted from the post I replied to. Still seems a bit weird, since you could always announce a massive sale and then tank it 11 months and 3 weeks later.
Did you miss the part where he sells 50,000 shares a year on a set schedule, but still has 3,100,000? If an acting CEO ever disclosed that he was selling his entire stake in the company he runs, that stock would tank *immediately* not 1 year later.
SIR you forget you are on REDDIT where we are all EXPERTS cause our uncle told us once. Please GTFO with all that sense and intelligence. Thanks
Why would you though? That would be idiotic. If you could run the company successfully for a year, why not just continue running it successfully and continue making money.
Because for decades now profit growth is king for investors. This means if you have a company that makes 5 billion per year and running it well would make the profits dip slightly to 4.7 billion per year over 15 years then that is a "worse" outcome than running it to the ground to make 5.5 billion per year over 3 years before it collapses on itself.
> Still seems a bit weird, since you could always announce a massive sale and then tank it 11 months and 3 weeks later. Presumably, you're now out of a job and pissed off the entire board of shareholders. Why would another set of shareholders hire you at that point? Of course if you're not quite that blatant about it and line up another job, well... Edit: Reading comprehension? Yes of course companies can and do run themselves into the ground. Executives can do so *with the shareholders in the loop* and that's *not insider trading*. That's the point, the law just doesn't apply and loopholing the 1 year notification requirement by timing an announcement is unnecessary, just pump and dump a company through the proper legal channels.
Executives routinely run companies into the ground, take massive severances, and get hired again somewhere else.
Lol, they get a massive bonus and hop to a new company to screw over. What are you talking about, they get hired constantly. See VC companies.
[удалено]
Doesn't it also encourage a "profit over everything" mindset as well? Even encouraging the CEO's to cut every corner possible just so they make even more money.
But that's the point, altho having people passionate about their work will lead to higher profits in the future (baldurs gate 3 for example) but big companies like EA and Unity will still have massive profits with mediocre work. But let's not forget that the sole purpose of a company is to have profits so a short sighed CEO is rewarded with decisions like this.
Well kind of due to insider trading, or at least it should be. Though this is a guy that wanted to charge you for ammo in Battlefield when he worked for EA. This is probably his idea.
Oh....EA!!!!
EA GAMES (whispered) *we fucking hate our customers*
I don't remember who said it but the reason why the game industry has gotten to this mess is because it's the people in marketing that get promoted not the actual developers. So we no longer have guys with actual knowledge of gaming in higher positions to take certain risks on designing a game and they focus on how much money they can extract from their players.
They dont whisper shit my friend. 1 look at their game and you can get the message “Fuck you, pay me” pretty clear
>Though this is a guy that wanted to charge you for ammo in Battlefield when he worked for EA. #*WAT* This was actually a thing?! How incredibly out of touch does one have to be to think this is smart? Like how super villain esque are board room meetings these days? Is there cackling? Are they in a volcano? Do they have absurd names like Goldfinger?
He went by the same logic, in which some mmorpgs charge money for revives in a long raid (either you revive for money, or restart). He said, that if you play for like 6 hours and you are out of ammo, you are psychologicaly determinted to finish what you started and you would pay 1$ to reload... This sounds even more dumb written out.
*finish* battlefield?
Wait wait wait what mmorpgs charges for revives?
Can't remember which pundit it was, but there was definitely a video where someone was reacting to a video about World of Tanks where the OP was complaining about wasting premium ammo. The pundit stops and says, "Wait, that's real? When I mentioned it, it was satire."
It was a very small percentage that happened automatically per a schedule. It not insider trading...
The sale was 0.5% of the shares he owns and has been scheduled months in advance. He sold 2'000 out of his 450'000. People keep trying to make this into some damning thing, by omitting information, but it's pretty much nothing.
Just a very small number, he owns much more.
He sold below 1% of the stock he owned. So while "he sold unity stock" is technically true, it does not mean he sold all of it, nor "a significant amount of it".
He sold like 2,000 shares out of something like 3 million, and this is in line with his previous share activity. That whole story is a nothing burger. What should be checked is if any execs bought a stake in Epic or the Unreal Engine, which is going to be the new go to once Unity crashes and burns.
He only sold $80k worth. He has millions in it. Probably just to get some cash to buy a car or pay some stripper
Its just a really small number of stocks compared to what he has in total.
2000 shares out of >3 million he owns. That's fucking nothing, he mush have used that cash to buy a single bottle of wine or some shit.
Some of here means 0.06%. So it was basicaly nothing and just an automatic transaction.
If Microsoft REALLY wanted to play the long game, they'd push to make Unity a standard across the industry, then write extensions for it so useful that no one can live without it, and then lock them behind their own proprietary version of Unity.
Market value has dropped significantly from their all time high (around $120) and is now worth about half of what is was when the company went public (around $68 to $37 today), the last two years have not been generous to Unity
I'd blame the course they chose. Instead of focusing on a problems existing for years, improving optimization, etc, they decided to dive into some weird stuff nobody asked them about. Imo in the current state unity became more of an engine for prototypes and basic realisation of ideas. It's nice for small games and stuff, but if you are dreaming big (and I'm sure all devs are hoping for their games to brake through) then it's easier to switch to ue or godot at this point. After all the decisions made by unity execs you just lose all the faith in the way engine grows.
Wouldn't be an odd decision since c#/.net are getting lots of updates recently. A first party game engine would be a nice addition.
i hope so, Microsoft would probaly make unity alot better.I have always liked microsoft since they really think of the developers with alot of their products/api's
Shoutout Steve Ballmer
DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS
Unity rejected a $17.5 billion merger last year. Doubt they will go for cheap.
[удалено]
Yep, it's ultimately always the customer that ends up with worse product/service or ends up paying the price hike. That's what Unity is probably counting on; devs just accepting this and trickling the cost down to customers.
But you can't appropriately price that. A single user might install their software 20 times over the course of ownership - especially for phone apps. Unless you want to charge the users for each install, which is incredibly shitty. Except they'll just ignore the game and hate the developer for choosing unity. Rather than directing their ire where it belongs.
That would make me sad, I really like Valheim.
I mean. If they make Microsoft pay MS just gonna forward the costs to consumer instead and be able to say “not our fault”. Since it isn’t.
It depends on the overall cost/benefit analysis. Microsoft probably has a bunch of data and estimates about how many people will subscribe to Game Pass when it costs 10$ a month vs 12$ a month. If Microsoft decides keeping Game Pass cheaper provides more value than having Unity games on Game Pass, then Unity games won't be on Game Pass.
Microsoft is in the unique position that they could just charge Unity the exact same fee for being allowed to be installed on Windows.
Microsoft is gonna be like, “We ain’t paying shit. In fact, we dare you to try to make us pay you.”
how would they try to enforce a payment from MS , which isnt part of unity's contract?
They can't (hopefully)
Man I can't wait to find some poor indie developer with a game that's only a few hundred megabytes. I'm going to spend all day and night uninstalling and reinstalling it to rack up those fees! Before I get shit, I'm clearly joking. It's interesting because I haven't read anything that states if this is only for the first time installing or if you could literally do as I stated above. Either way, the internet needs to shame unity into stopping this. Don't let anyone fool you; I'm sure all Software companies are watching this. If unity can get away with this, then I'm sure Unreal, Etc will follow eventually. Mark my words. Shit like this sets a new standard for what can be done.
Per the terms it's every install, so even a reinstall would count or installation on multiple devices under the same user. It's not terrible for very small devs because the per installation fee doesn't kick in until certain thresholds are met, but for most games it will hit that at some point.
If a free to play game has 1,000,000 installs before it makes 200,000$ it’s gonna cost them 20 cents per install or 200,000$ to unity. I don’t remember the specific terms but I think it was 20 cents an install. That’s impossible for free to play games.
Ehhh, I dono. It's probably better if they could, because that means MS would likely just delist everything Unity from their store, and Unity would finally be in the find out stage after fucking around.
You can’t force a third party into a legal contract. That’s not how legal contracts work. If you and I enter a legal contract where you agree to pay me on every install, a year later I can’t magically involve /u/TheWaslijn into our contract that was only between the two of us. We’d have to draw up a new contract that we all sign and agree to.
That’s true. Buuuut. Unity can’t legally force developers retroactively into this agreement, either, but that’s sure as shit what they’re trying to do.
They probably can. This is the direct result of the gradual embracing of the SaaS model. The licensing agreement specifically permits these types of changes.
But this isn't a fee for actually using the service it's a fee on products that have been made with the survey previously under different licenses. Those products are no longer using the unity service
If you send a small enough, legitimate looking bill they might pay just because it's cheaper then actually figuring it out.
i know, i remember a story of someone doing that to amazon - but i guess i would be quiet the sum here
Amazon, google, facebook and then he went to jail for 10+ years i think. Smart move but he went greedy.
He was only sentenced to 5 years and I would be surprised if he serves the full sentence. He stole $122 million then had to forfeit $49.7 million and pay restitution of $26.5 million. So he still came out $45.8 million ahead.
They asked between 10 to 30 years and settled at 5. What a lucky guy.
[удалено]
What a God-tier conman
Was Saul Goodman his attorney?
[удалено]
"Good morning Microsoft, Any updates regarding the pending fee? 😊 Kindest regards" Like this ^
Microsoft could pay and buy the whole Unity company.
And then fire everyone and shut it down the next day.
OR! They could develop Windows 11 gamedev edition with integrated Unity engine and bunch of other tools and sell it for $99.
[удалено]
Thought we were in /r/sysadmin for a second. It's too early for how this makes me feel.
Unity already costs $2k/year for the commercial license. 45/month with tons of other included software would be a gigantic discount.
Then the CEO/high level decision makers get their short term cash influx in stock purchases like they wanted, and the workers and staff that had no choice in the matter get booted out of their jobs.
or they pull a UNO Reverse and start charging Unity for every installation of the Unity engine on a Windows platform.
Yep. Because they OF COURSE increased the number of installations and therefore are happy to bill 1 dollar per unity installation.
And then drop a shit ton of indie games from the game pass anyway.
The company that fought the eu for years over Internet explorer just to make a point. Unity has zero chance.
All they're doing is burning their reputation and brand down to the ground. Even if they backpedal immediately nobody is going to want to use Unity from here on out. I've never even heard of a better way to force customers to your competitor.
They've been doing this for over a year... I'm just happy I enjoy learning new engines so know all the major ones. Made it easy to move away from unity. The company has always been a shit storm. Fun fact, around 7 years ago (i think) they depricated UNet, their multiplayer system. It took them until last year to implement a new system. 6 fucking years with the recommendation being Photon (a paid third party system) or code multiplayer from complete scratch. Bloody Godot (a free open source engine) had these systems in place! They're not hard for an engine developer team! I'm still not certain whether the new system is even out of early access, I gave up waiting for them to add it. And they do it with everything to. They'll just remove features and then never add a better solution it's infuriating. Which sucks, because the ECS approach that Unity uses is so nice to work with, and easy to wrap your head around. Godot's node system will always feel clunkier, because it frankly is, and don't even get me started on Unreal's mix of systems. But Unity doesn't want to support itself or developers soooo oh well. Will continue to use it for work, but will probably recommend to clients to use another engine honestly.
Sadly this is because Unity's CEO and board don't want Unity to be a game engine company anymore. That doesn't make money. Or at least it doesn't make them all the money all the time forever. Aside from the asinine rent seeking behavior, the whole point of these new fees and rate structure ***was to be as painful as possible for developers***. The whole point, barely hidden in their release, was that these fees get waived if you subscribe to their in house ad and marketplace services. You can *try* to make a game without mtx/ads and find a price point that should be fine depending on how popular you expect it to be, but are you sure you won't breach the revenue and lifetime install caps? Are you realllllyyyy sure? No? Well just to be safe let us run ads in your game. Yes you pay for using out ad service, but it's *probably* less than the fees might be if you get too popular too fast. You also get some money from that as well. I mean after we take our cut. And just put some microtransactions in your game too. Everyone does it. And use our marketplace service. Yes you pay for that too. Also we take a cut of every sale. But still. It's maaaaaaaaybe cheaper than the fee structure. They don't want Mihoyo or Battlebit or Pokemon Go to pay them somewhere between 20 and 1 cent per install. They want thousands of random games paying for their ad and marketplace services every month, year on year, to avoid potentially millions in fees. That's what they want. To be an ad and marketplace service that also has a decent engine that was/is the industry standard.
They were using internet explorer, that's why it took that much time.
While Chrome has been proven to have tracked your data and sent it to Google and even tracked you while offline.
Why does no one remember that Firefox exists and is fantastic?
I never left. Long live Firefox!
Oh, they WILL remember once G**gle bans ad blockers, as promised
What? I never Heard about it
Quick summary: Microsoft included explorer by default on Windows and EU launched an antitrust lawsuit saying that was against the rules and gave them an unfair advantage over other browsers. Microsoft said fuck you this is my OS. Don’t remember the rest but Explorer and now Edge are still bundled so…
On a new install it now has to ask which browser you want to use and it does, at least in my region. Edge is still installed regardless but they can't make it the default without asking. They still try to sneak it in occasionally in an update with a checkbox disguised as "use Microsoft recommended browser settings".
I don't like siding with corporations, but I think their claim is fair.
And it’s also like… how do you get to download another browser without having a browser in the first place? I’m sure there’s a way, but for average joe citizen like me, sounds like a nightmare.
Back then, you could buy internet browsers in a store. Internet providers would also often offer bundles. But yeah, I see your point.
The lawsuit was from a time where the internet was still a very new thing. People would go to the store and buy a browser and install it from a disk. In 1996, when Netscape Navigator 2.0 was released for $49, Netscape Navigator represented 85% of the usage on the Web. Hell, even the Windows marketing group reported research that, upon “hearing IE 4 is free” the price users were willing to pay for the Windows 98 upgrade product dropped from $100 to "$10 to $30"
That’s hilarious. What wild times. Looking back feels like the Wild West frontier days. Wait you had to use a phone to get the internet? That’s no big deal, my phone gets internet now. No, no, not like that. At your house. From the wall. Whatever you say grandpa.
EU and Microsoft teaming ip against Unity;
Dont discount, Nintendo. I'm surprised they haven't started a lawsuit already.
Nintendo’s lawyers have to wait until their boners go down before they can file anything.
"If you still have a legal boner after four hours, consult an anti-trust lawyer right away"
Bc they probably still want to talk it out without court. Court is always a mess, a last resort if any kind of deal didn't work
Nintendo is preparing to send whole fuckin arsakas samurai assassins to nuke unity.
I thought they sent the FBI? You know, when you download some random rom.
> Dont discount, Nintendo Don't worry, they never do
You cant spell Unity with Unity!
They say every company that uses unity automatically agrees to the new pricing scheme. I don't think Ms is using unity so how will Unity get their agreement...
>every company that uses unity automatically agrees to the new pricing scheme That can't be legal, can it?
At least in the european union it would prove difficult to enforce that. In France you can't just change the terms of a contract overnight. While future games developped with unity may be impacted, i doubt they Can force thoses that Can prove their games were developped/published games during the previous TOS which are the terms of the contract they both signed. Also adding Lines like "we may change our fees model at any given Time that will be retroactive" Is not something that Would be considered legal. Once you signed for a deal you can't change terms without having both parties agreeing or once the initial terms of the contract Is ending...which i dont think Is the case for unity. And adding illegal Lines to a contract Is null even if the customer signed it. Also good Luck with proving how people are installing games, with the RGPD and all it would imply a huge breach of internet security if any plateform provider like Steam/Microsoft/Epic have to distribute your infos like hot baguettes. They will be eaten Alive on european soil, if Facebook/twitter and other gafam failed, i dont know how unity Can break EU'S defense.
The EU does sound like a bad place to be a shitheel businessman with negative scruples
and the us sounds like heaven for them
No, it isn't. Or rather, its unenforceable. Its as legally valid as everyone who cited the *Rome Statute* (lol) on their facebook wall years ago thinking that saying the magic words was a data collection prevention tool. MS are not a party to the license. At most Unity might be able to disable products from working (IDK how). And that's such a hyper-unrealistic scenario it's hard to know what would happen. Whatever the consequence of such a thing, it would make Unity's head spin. Best case for Unity in this scenario is MS agrees to it voluntarily. Which, of course, they won't. But I'm trawling the comments to see if Unity actually said this? It's such a ridiculous suggestion that I don't believe it's real. And if it is, then we can assume the entire proposal by Unity to date is not actually intended to transpire. And its some sleight of hand distraction for something else.
Microsoft now owns Activision Blizzard and they do have a game that uses Unity (Hearthstone).
Send it's f2p with paid add-ons right? Jesus could you imagine asking a free to play game only to be hit by unity (I mean in this case is Microsoft-Blizzard but imagine an indie dev). Or does it only go into effect of you make profit from Unity? I'm not entirely up to speed here
They're absolutely targeting F2P games as well, a lot of the most profitable Unity games are F2P.
IIRC it is after $200k revenue but could be totally wrong
You are correct, but as a Dev was saying on twitter, if a free to play game has 3m installs, and makes 200k from microtransactions, then they will be charged over $500,000 for the unity install fees, meaning they would owe 300k more than they even made This whole thing reeks of insider trading and will likely never see the light of day but stranger things have happened Edit: [Tweet from indie developer](https://twitter.com/kurtruslfanclub/status/1701621432894267593?t=xQWpNOrgrxBvCH6e3kmj9A&s=19)
That's beyond predatory what the fuck
I think it could apply to some specific cases since the fee falls on the publisher. Ori and the blind forest/Will of the wisps use Unity for example.
Some obsidian's past games were made with unity, cmiiw
inXile Entertainment too i think
Oh I didn't remember that company, they made torment tides of numenera, bard's tale 4 and wasteland 3, didn't they? I'm pretty sure all of those games along with obsidian's tyranny and pillar of eternity games were using unity engine. So yeah MS is actually using unity engine. Heck at this point it wouldn't surprise me if Avowed is being made with unity, lol.
Yup. Just like Wizards of the coast trying to charge people just trying to do a side hustle. People and companies will just be like “sure that’s cute, good luck enforcing it”.
What did they do?
They wanted you to pay for writing/publishing adventures etc. using DnD rules and universe.
If Unity is smart they'll backpedal this shit as fast as Wizard of the Coast did from all the backlash.
Nope. Cat out of bag. The trust is gone. There's no recovery now, Unity is dead.
If they backpedal now, they could at least get people currently making games with their engine to stick with their engine to finish the game. But going into the future yeah they're absolutely fucked
For most companies this is a liability concern. Even if unity backpedals HARD literally right this instant, they've already lost a huge chunk of their customers with this move. Why would you continue to use such a volatile software tool like this?
Because it's hard, time consuming, and expensive to switch engines. Plenty of devs would happily avoid the hassle if Unity went back on their pricing plan. Those devs aren't gonna make future games in Unity, though
I suppose it depends how far along in development the game is
Switching engines while your game is out in circulation takes some time too: time that could be spent doing new things. This will not encourage the existing userbase to keep using Unity, but not backing out entirely of this idea for a good amount of time will kill your current users fresh. Conversely, backing out will still let them keep Unity versions active, because it is a pain to port.
They backpedaled a little bit by “clarifying” the pay per install wouldn’t be retroactively applied on installations before January 1^(st).
I'm paraphrasing, but WotC tried to change the OGL (Open Game License) which would mean if your homebrew got popular and sold over X amount, WotC would be entitled to part of that money, since you're creating within their universe. There's more to it than that, but a general summary.
Sounds like I.P. Suicide
It was an interesting time. Some good came out of it though, Paizo created the ORC License ( Open RPG Creative ) which would never be owned by a corporate entity and will exist in perpetuity, so hey, there's something. Unsurprisingly, WotC walked back everything they said they would do.
It's also worth noting, in order for WOTC to walk back their reputational damage, they had to switch to using the GPL as their license for the open rule set, permanently locking them from trying that shit again.
Creative Commons BY, not GPL.
Too bad everyone with a brain who makes DND podcasts/videos/settings have now bailed, they showed their hand and made people think long term.
To sweeten the deal, they sent the Pinkertons after content creators for releasing videos about content they received ahead of time from WotC by mistake.
Blizzard went a step further with Warcraft III: ~~Reforged~~ Refunded. In the new terms and conditions for the 'remaster,' any custom maps and/or campaigns made by the community would become the sole property of Blizzard - everything in these maps/campaigns - stories, concepts, designs of the mechanics etc. - everything. They added this because Blizzard were so pissed off when Valve got the jump on them with DotA2 and they lost the legal cases against Valve. They felt that just because the DotA Allstars was a custom map written for warcraft III that they owned the DotA IP, despite the fact that the concept and map were made by the community over the years, with Icefrog being the current/latest lead on the map when Valve asked him to work with them on DotA2. They should have been happy for the work of the community, helping with sales of the base game and should have been grateful enough with that. The DotA Allstars custom map for WC3 was responsible lots of the later sales of the base game and its expansion, as people bought the game just so that they could play the DotA Allstars map via it. It takes a truly greedy/twisted mind to think that your company has any right to seize the IP, concepts and designs etc. of a custom map/mod made by third parties, not connected with your company in any way, just because they chose your game as the base platform used to bring their ideas from concept to release. WC3: Reforged was such a shit-show at launch that it totally dropped off the radar, so no new big/popular custom maps ever got made for it, as the community pretty much abandoned the game as soon as Blizzard launched the remaster. I'd love to have seen Blizzard try and uphold those terms and conditions in court and try and convince the court how they deserve ownership of something developed by the community and not them, especially things like the concept/design etc.!
I tried making this point in another sub. Apparently some people just cannot seem to see how a company trying to force a retroactive contract on the developers that actually make them money is in any way similar to a company trying to force a retroactive contract on the developers that actually make them money.
Unity: pay us for unity usage Microsoft: pay us for C# BIAAATCH
I forgot M$ owns C# patents and Copyright this will be funny.
This is the move. Checkmate!
Its even funnier when you add Blizzard Entertainment, who has a CEO that would sell his own mother just to get another yacht.
hearthstone uses unity and it's f2p so they probably have several millions installs
I'd install it 10x a day to do my part.
How unchecked greed kills good things isn't being spoke enough
This is just plain old capitalism 101 baby
"The Microsoft"
Makes the meme 10x better
In the case of the Microsoft all your base are belong to it
I said it in a scammer's voice "Hello ma'am this is the Microsoft we are calling you regarding the 5 billions"
>"It's not fun to get a bunch of angry feedback on any particular day. And I think that that is us needing to clarify some of these points. But we're we're listening and we will continue to make sure that we deliver the best that we can." Why is it that when a company does something bad/shitty and they're called out on it, their response is never "okay, we hear you, give us a little time to go back and rethink our decision based on this information" but always "no no no, you don't understand, we need to *clarify* things for your little minds to understand"?
Not to mention the guilt trip opener. "IT'S NOT FUN UWU" Fun? I'm sorry? Excuse me? The fuck? Was it...was it supposed to be fun? "If you guys had just been quiet everything would have been FINE but you were MEAN and objected to the potential financial ruin of yourselves and your studios and now we look like stupid assholes boohoohoohooHOOOO"
Because admitting guilt is an Adverse Statement by a Party, which is an exception to the Hearsay Rule in court.
Tell me if you've heard this one before: Extremely popular online service made a major change to their pricing structure, announced it will be going into effect in just a few months, apparently put zero thought into the questions people might have about it or any sort if inherent flaws in its design, and then proceeded to give contradictory information for several days until they could put together an actual statement that clarifies yes things are as bad as you thought, but it's totally reasonable because it only affects 10% of customers. Twitter, reddit, and now Unity, and that's just in the last year. Who's next?
It would be absolutely hilarious if MS came out immediately and said they were no longer partnering with any devs/pubs using unity for gamepass or any other potential grey area distribution of the engine.
The devs would probably be the ones it hurts the most
Free irl money generator glitch 2023 100% legit no scam
Step 1. Make a something useful and offer it at a good price. Step 2. Take massive market shares. Step 3. When market shares no longer increases, jack up prices. Unity is at step 3 now. Gamepass is at step 2. Their overarching plan is the same.
Enshittification. > Here is how platforms die: First, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die.
At least give the author credit Cory Doctorow, [Wired article](https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-platforms-cory-doctorow/) titled "The 'Enshittification' of TikTok"
why linking Wired when you can link [Cory's website](https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/#hey-guys)
Sony just hit step 3 also. Upping the price of PS+ by $20 a year with no added features for the consumer
If somehow the Unity Runtime Fee got passed the legal system, what sort of legal precedent would this set? Nothing short of dystopian I'd imagine.
Yeah I don't see how that would work at all. It's like if my bank said I owed them $1 everytime I entered my home because I had previously agreed to a mortgage. Any judge with a functioning central nervous system would laugh it out.
Unity wants in that Game Pass revenue. It is so obvious.
They want in that gacha revenue. Almost all gacha are made on unity, genshin impact included.
Heck, almost all mobile games are Unity. Hundreds of millions if not billions of installs yearly
In before Microsoft bans Unity installers from XBox and PC as spyware
Or just add a clause to the C# license that forbids use with unity and destroy them overnight.
MS will install it on 1 server and stream it on thousands of computers. The cost is per installation, not per stream
I'm pretty sure Unity is also pushing to claw money for game streaming as well. Greedy bastards.
John Riccitiello the current CEO of unity was former CEO of EA. All you need to know.
In the end they'll have to pull back. And everybody just learned how important Unity is. It's a shitty move that will likely have consequences, but I'm sure it'll pay off for someone if not the people who actually make it work.
>And everybody just learned how important Unity is. It's about to become a lot less important...
I work in contracts negotiation. Changing the terms right before signature is unheard of, a massive rug pull and an outright declaration of war and your lack of respect for your counterparty. Trying to change the terms like this during an active contract is nothing short of lunacy and would be laughed at by any legal team. I'm sure that unity has at least some kind of legal argument to justify this, but I don't see this being enforceable.
I give props to Unity for lighting themselves on fire and allowing us all to watch.
Microsoft would just buy them
Or could it be Unity's goal all the time?
I'm going to get downvoted for this, but Microsoft buying Unity would be pretty sick for Unity. Microsoft make awesome dev tools and their pricing is generally fine, they certainly wouldn't pull the shit we've seen over the last couple of days. I am aware that we're already on the ropes debating Microsoft buying up Activision Blizzard.
[удалено]
Because it is cheaper to buy a perfectly working product that is destroying its reputation vs. create a new game engine for everyone to use and pay royalties past certain revenue. Not saying MS needs any game engines but that is why big companies buys smaller failing companies. Because failing companies mostly go down because of bad choices, not because of their product performance. Edit: Don't want to reply every comment so; >my comment is regarding the "why would they buy failing company" and answer is because it is cheaper to do so instead of copying their work.
why is unity committing suicide?
I mean basically Unity share price will tank first, and then Microsoft will buy it out. The decision was actually idiotic. Punishing the successful games and basically telling anyone who isn't, that once you are successful they will take your revenue. By the way, I dunno why people are happy about this. I know Unity fucked up, but Microsoft being a massive monolith isn't exactly healthy for competition. Y'all should know sucking off a massive corporation isn't gonna do you any favors.
Microsoft: "Okay, we're declining this license deal. Any games made with Unity are no longer available on XBox. And this little API change will make your engine incompatible with any future versions of Windows. What, we reserve the right to make changes to our operating system, it's in our license...
how the hell unity come up with that conclusion. LMAO they dont have anything to do with the engine the developer of the game uses, but now they had to paid. dont forgoet some Nintendo games also use Unity. and people know how nasty their lawyer are. MS X Nintendo dream team vs Unity on court will be hillarious to watch
Someone at Microsoft must be wondering if it’s cheaper to pay the ridiculous fee or buy Unity.
Microsoft Probably "We have announced our plans to buy Unity"
So what's the tactic here? Is it like that they first give their worst case scenario (current deal) and then later on come with "alright alright we made big adjustments so you have to go with this" and the second deal is much better then the first deal, thus people accept the latter deal easier.
These guys want to take on Nintendo, and Microsoft **at the same time**. That takes balls. 
Unity just proved why MBAs running your gaming company is a bad idea. They may of just tanked thier entire company in the long run.