Unity engine controversy

[Redwolf]

The legal issue is whether Unity can change the license terms of software that was purchased with different licensing terms. They want to do that to charge for game sales from Jan 1st 2024 on even if people use an old unity version and the game is older than this license change.

With Unreal Engine the situation is clear: if you purchase the engine today with license terms <foo> then you can forever sell your games being subject to <foo>, as long as you never update the engine to one with new, different licensing terms.

I have no information whether the old licensing terms for Unity have taken their path into account proactively (you can say that your current license becomes invalid when the product gets a new license). If so that should have been an alarm bell for developers. If not they can't do what they want to do.

[A Canadian Cat]

Yikes I just reviewed their financial statements. They are scary.

https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001810806/2593ac46-46db-47c5-996e-5dcf7473b3a0.html#

The highlights are they just about doubled their revenue from 2020 to 2023 but they more than tripled their losses.

12 Months Ending	Dec. 31, 2022	Dec. 31, 2021	Dec. 31, 2020
Revenue	$ 1,391,024	$ 1,110,526	$ 772,445
Net (loss)	(919,488)	(532,607)	(282,308)

So, whatever they do they need to pull in more revenue. They cannot cut their way to profitability with numbers like that.

[jamus34]

The thing that kills me is that based on this structure a dev could theoretically be billed after a game is removed from distribution.

Plus, considering Steam is usually very tight-lipped on their sales / download numbers how would Unity get this information? Buying it from Steam? Would that even be legal?

Lots of flags being raised on this one in my mind.

[JasonPratt]

Wow, ACCat, thanks!

I'm still unclear on what charge they're planning to make. Is it based on the number of hours+fractions a game runs on a platform? On the number of downloads? If a game is removed from distribution, then I suppose Steam (or whoever is distributing) could still be billed for run-time, but how would the developers who used Unity be billed?

[DetCord]

The legal issue is whether Unity can change the license terms of software that was purchased with different licensing terms. They want to do that to charge for game sales from Jan 1st 2024 on even if people use an old unity version and the game is older than this license change.

With Unreal Engine the situation is clear: if you purchase the engine today with license terms <foo> then you can forever sell your games being subject to <foo>, as long as you never update the engine to one with new, different licensing terms.

I have no information whether the old licensing terms for Unity have taken their path into account proactively (you can say that your current license becomes invalid when the product gets a new license). If so that should have been an alarm bell for developers. If not they can't do what they want to do.

They've already changed/retro'd their EULA to support their new model. The current market-share is, IIRC, 24-25% PC, 25-26% console platforms, with the remaining being mobile. Unity makes up the bulk of mobile developed titles using that engine. There is a reason we (game developers) don't use this engine, or rather rarely do.

1.) It's shit.
2.) It's shit at using/manipulating (GUI).
3.) It's shit at animating and or capping anims.
4.) It's just plain shit. It's obvious that they gave up years ago with regards to moving it along.
 

Yikes I just reviewed their financial statements. They are scary.

https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001810806/2593ac46-46db-47c5-996e-5dcf7473b3a0.html#

The highlights are they just about doubled their revenue from 2020 to 2023 but they more than tripled their losses.

12 Months Ending	Dec. 31, 2022	Dec. 31, 2021	Dec. 31, 2020
Revenue	$ 1,391,024	$ 1,110,526	$ 772,445
Net (loss)	(919,488)	(532,607)	(282,308)

So, whatever they do they need to pull in more revenue. They cannot cut their way to profitability with numbers like that.

Their market-share has plummeted over the years primarily due to not only abandonment by the dev world by-and-large but also because of several controversies as well. John Riccitiello is running the show over there at Unity and previously helmed monetization of gaming aspects at EA. Yeah, Electronic Arts. He's the guy that thought up and attempted to implement that if you ran out of ammo in a BF game you could pay real money for a few extra mags.

The man is an utter scumbag and was recently found to have sold his Unity shares prior to this announcement. If you really wanna know who this guy is look at his time at Pepsi and their actions in Africa. It's Nestle level evil.

https://www.eurogamer.net/unity-bosses-sold-stock-days-before-development-fees-announcement-raising-eyebrows   

[Grim.Reaper]

The legal issue is whether Unity can change the license terms of software that was purchased with different licensing terms. They want to do that to charge for game sales from Jan 1st 2024 on even if people use an old unity version and the game is older than this license change.

With Unreal Engine the situation is clear: if you purchase the engine today with license terms <foo> then you can forever sell your games being subject to <foo>, as long as you never update the engine to one with new, different licensing terms.

I have no information whether the old licensing terms for Unity have taken their path into account proactively (you can say that your current license becomes invalid when the product gets a new license). If so that should have been an alarm bell for developers. If not they can't do what they want to do.

They've already changed/retro'd their EULA to support their new model. The current market-share is, IIRC, 24-25% PC, 25-26% console platforms, with the remaining being mobile. Unity makes up the bulk of mobile developed titles using that engine. There is a reason we (game developers) don't use this engine, or rather rarely do.

1.) It's shit.
2.) It's shit at using/manipulating (GUI).
3.) It's shit at animating and or capping anims.
4.) It's just plain shit. It's obvious that they gave up years ago with regards to moving it along.
 

Yikes I just reviewed their financial statements. They are scary.

https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001810806/2593ac46-46db-47c5-996e-5dcf7473b3a0.html#

The highlights are they just about doubled their revenue from 2020 to 2023 but they more than tripled their losses.

12 Months Ending	Dec. 31, 2022	Dec. 31, 2021	Dec. 31, 2020
Revenue	$ 1,391,024	$ 1,110,526	$ 772,445
Net (loss)	(919,488)	(532,607)	(282,308)

So, whatever they do they need to pull in more revenue. They cannot cut their way to profitability with numbers like that.

Their market-share has plummeted over the years primarily due to not only abandonment by the dev world by-and-large but also because of several controversies as well. John Riccitiello is running the show over there at Unity and previously helmed monetization of gaming aspects at EA. Yeah, Electronic Arts. He's the guy that thought up and attempted to implement that if you ran out of ammo in a BF game you could pay real money for a few extra mags.

The man is an utter scumbag and was recently found to have sold his Unity shares prior to this announcement. If you really wanna know who this guy is look at his time at Pepsi and their actions in Africa. It's Nestle level evil.

https://www.eurogamer.net/unity-bosses-sold-stock-days-before-development-fees-announcement-raising-eyebrows   

Just curious, I might have missed in one of your past postings, but you mention being a game developer.  What games have you developed/released as might want to check them out?  Also, if Unity isn't good to use, which one are you using for your games?

[Redwolf]

Here is a look at the legality of the stunt, including a look back at older documents:

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/09/wait-is-unity-allowed-to-just-change-its-fee-structure-like-that/

[al_infierno]

The legal issue is whether Unity can change the license terms of software that was purchased with different licensing terms. They want to do that to charge for game sales from Jan 1st 2024 on even if people use an old unity version and the game is older than this license change.

With Unreal Engine the situation is clear: if you purchase the engine today with license terms <foo> then you can forever sell your games being subject to <foo>, as long as you never update the engine to one with new, different licensing terms.

I have no information whether the old licensing terms for Unity have taken their path into account proactively (you can say that your current license becomes invalid when the product gets a new license). If so that should have been an alarm bell for developers. If not they can't do what they want to do.

They've already changed/retro'd their EULA to support their new model. The current market-share is, IIRC, 24-25% PC, 25-26% console platforms, with the remaining being mobile. Unity makes up the bulk of mobile developed titles using that engine. There is a reason we (game developers) don't use this engine, or rather rarely do.

1.) It's shit.
2.) It's shit at using/manipulating (GUI).
3.) It's shit at animating and or capping anims.
4.) It's just plain shit. It's obvious that they gave up years ago with regards to moving it along.
 

Yikes I just reviewed their financial statements. They are scary.

https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001810806/2593ac46-46db-47c5-996e-5dcf7473b3a0.html#

The highlights are they just about doubled their revenue from 2020 to 2023 but they more than tripled their losses.

12 Months Ending	Dec. 31, 2022	Dec. 31, 2021	Dec. 31, 2020
Revenue	$ 1,391,024	$ 1,110,526	$ 772,445
Net (loss)	(919,488)	(532,607)	(282,308)

So, whatever they do they need to pull in more revenue. They cannot cut their way to profitability with numbers like that.

Their market-share has plummeted over the years primarily due to not only abandonment by the dev world by-and-large but also because of several controversies as well. John Riccitiello is running the show over there at Unity and previously helmed monetization of gaming aspects at EA. Yeah, Electronic Arts. He's the guy that thought up and attempted to implement that if you ran out of ammo in a BF game you could pay real money for a few extra mags.

The man is an utter scumbag and was recently found to have sold his Unity shares prior to this announcement. If you really wanna know who this guy is look at his time at Pepsi and their actions in Africa. It's Nestle level evil.

https://www.eurogamer.net/unity-bosses-sold-stock-days-before-development-fees-announcement-raising-eyebrows   

I'm curious what you mean by "we game devs rarely use Unity." 

Unless you're specifically referring to a group of devs you work with, this is categorically false. Unity is one of the most popular game engines on the market and plenty of popular indie games like Phasmophobia and Outer Wilds are made in the engine. Unity was previously considered a more beginner friendly alternative to Unreal with IIRC less sucky fees compared to Unreal (this of course is no longer true)

[DetCord]

The legal issue is whether Unity can change the license terms of software that was purchased with different licensing terms. They want to do that to charge for game sales from Jan 1st 2024 on even if people use an old unity version and the game is older than this license change.

With Unreal Engine the situation is clear: if you purchase the engine today with license terms <foo> then you can forever sell your games being subject to <foo>, as long as you never update the engine to one with new, different licensing terms.

I have no information whether the old licensing terms for Unity have taken their path into account proactively (you can say that your current license becomes invalid when the product gets a new license). If so that should have been an alarm bell for developers. If not they can't do what they want to do.

They've already changed/retro'd their EULA to support their new model. The current market-share is, IIRC, 24-25% PC, 25-26% console platforms, with the remaining being mobile. Unity makes up the bulk of mobile developed titles using that engine. There is a reason we (game developers) don't use this engine, or rather rarely do.

1.) It's shit.
2.) It's shit at using/manipulating (GUI).
3.) It's shit at animating and or capping anims.
4.) It's just plain shit. It's obvious that they gave up years ago with regards to moving it along.
 

Yikes I just reviewed their financial statements. They are scary.

https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001810806/2593ac46-46db-47c5-996e-5dcf7473b3a0.html#

The highlights are they just about doubled their revenue from 2020 to 2023 but they more than tripled their losses.

12 Months Ending	Dec. 31, 2022	Dec. 31, 2021	Dec. 31, 2020
Revenue	$ 1,391,024	$ 1,110,526	$ 772,445
Net (loss)	(919,488)	(532,607)	(282,308)

So, whatever they do they need to pull in more revenue. They cannot cut their way to profitability with numbers like that.

Their market-share has plummeted over the years primarily due to not only abandonment by the dev world by-and-large but also because of several controversies as well. John Riccitiello is running the show over there at Unity and previously helmed monetization of gaming aspects at EA. Yeah, Electronic Arts. He's the guy that thought up and attempted to implement that if you ran out of ammo in a BF game you could pay real money for a few extra mags.

The man is an utter scumbag and was recently found to have sold his Unity shares prior to this announcement. If you really wanna know who this guy is look at his time at Pepsi and their actions in Africa. It's Nestle level evil.

https://www.eurogamer.net/unity-bosses-sold-stock-days-before-development-fees-announcement-raising-eyebrows   

Just curious, I might have missed in one of your past postings, but you mention being a game developer.  What games have you developed/released as might want to check them out?  Also, if Unity isn't good to use, which one are you using for your games?

I've worked as a contractor for almost 10 years. It's where they outsource aspects of the development of whatever title being worked on. For me, it was various Ubi, ARI, and a whole slew of UE related projects as a texture artist, primarily via Substance and Coat.

Unless you're specifically referring to a group of devs you work with, this is categorically false. Unity is one of the most popular game engines on the market and plenty of popular indie games like Phasmophobia and Outer Wilds are made in the engine. Unity was previously considered a more beginner friendly alternative to Unreal with IIRC less sucky fees compared to Unreal (this of course is no longer true)

No, it isn't. It's popular in the indie PC/CsD realm that makes up a minuscule percentage of usage and revenue. Unity is the go to suite for mobile platforms, which I stated previously, and which makes up the majority of their rev and market share. It's why they merged with IronSource, bought out ATQ, and have plummeted down the rabbit hole of overt monetization of anything and everything. Their mission to exploit the mobile gaming sector for any and all drips isn't news to anyone, nor is the fact that they more or less control it.

Your straw man is proof that you're either stupid or utterly ignorant of Unity, their operations, platform usage, monetization, and or exploitation. Unity has been and is the primary DPlt for mobile games. It's been this way for years. A simple Google search would've rendered the results needed to make a cognitive decision.     

[Grim.Reaper]

Saw this posted on one of the social media channels, will be interesting to see on what changes they actually come back with.

We have heard you. We apologize for the confusion and angst the runtime fee policy we announced on Tuesday caused. We are listening, talking to our team members, community, customers, and partners, and will be making changes to the policy. We will share an update in a couple of days. Thank you for your honest and critical feedback.

[CaptainKoloth]

Saw this posted on one of the social media channels, will be interesting to see on what changes they actually come back with.

We have heard you. We apologize for the confusion and angst the runtime fee policy we announced on Tuesday caused. We are listening, talking to our team members, community, customers, and partners, and will be making changes to the policy. We will share an update in a couple of days. Thank you for your honest and critical feedback.

I've seen companies play this game before. They'll come back with something that's functionally similar and still onerous but pulled back slightly in some non-material way and then pat themselves on the back for "listening to the community."

[Gusington]

Hold your fire on calling anyone stupid around here, DetCord. Not appreciated.

[smittyohio]

Saw this posted on one of the social media channels, will be interesting to see on what changes they actually come back with.

We have heard you. We apologize for the confusion and angst the runtime fee policy we announced on Tuesday caused. We are listening, talking to our team members, community, customers, and partners, and will be making changes to the policy. We will share an update in a couple of days. Thank you for your honest and critical feedback.

I've seen companies play this game before. They'll come back with something that's functionally similar and still onerous but pulled back slightly in some non-material way and then pat themselves on the back for "listening to the community."

They just need to come up with something that provides them revenue, but is easy to understand, implement, and track.  Nobody trusted their ability to do so with "installs".   Development studios need some kind of cost certainty, and not something that changes, retroactively even, at a whim.

[al_infierno]

No, it isn't. It's popular in the indie PC/CsD realm that makes up a minuscule percentage of usage and revenue. Unity is the go to suite for mobile platforms, which I stated previously, and which makes up the majority of their rev and market share. It's why they merged with IronSource, bought out ATQ, and have plummeted down the rabbit hole of overt monetization of anything and everything. Their mission to exploit the mobile gaming sector for any and all drips isn't news to anyone, nor is the fact that they more or less control it.

Your straw man is proof that you're either stupid or utterly ignorant of Unity, their operations, platform usage, monetization, and or exploitation. Unity has been and is the primary DPlt for mobile games. It's been this way for years. A simple Google search would've rendered the results needed to make a cognitive decision.   

https://steamdb.info/tech/Engine/Unity/

Yeah, sort this list by year and you'll see what you said is 100% BS.  Unity being more popular for mobile games and "indie games" (as if a game published by Team 17 counts as "indie") doesn't take away from its popularity on other platorms. In addition to this DB page, Twitter is full of working game devs - both individual and part of companies - who have complained about the changes because it directly impacts projects they're currently working on. It's an indisputable fact that Unity is extremely popular pretty much across the board, and I am very dubious of any supposed game dev who claims otherwise.

Besides - are mobile game devs not game devs, too?

[ArizonaTank]

Hold your fire on calling anyone stupid around here, DetCord. Not appreciated.

+1 on not being appreciated.