Unity engine controversy

[gregb41352]

Unity announces a 'Runtime Fee', which will charge developers each time a game using the engine is downloaded. Game developers furious.


https://www.theguardian.com/games/2023/sep/12/unity-engine-fees-backlash-response

[smittyohio]

That's one good way to run off all the developers using your product...  Did they have an internal contest to see who could figure out how to do it fastest?

[JasonPratt]

Shouldn't that be a "download fee" then? "Runtime" would imply a charge per unit of time run.

[ArizonaTank]

More amazing since Unreal Engine has been kick'n butt recently. You would think they want Unity to be more competitive, not less.

[Destraex]

This is pretty typical of a problem I see all the time. Sales\marketting\share holders expect exponential growth from companies. Companies cannot just do what they do and get profit each year once they reach peak efficiency. This leads to some executive needing to justify their job each year by making up new schemes to make money until it becomes ridiculous. Their is a balance in everything and we don't seem to have the common sense to stop when it is obvious their is no further profit to be made. There is an attitude that 100% is never going to be good enough.
I get that you don't want to be complacent in the market place, but that classic sales attitude where if you make budget their is obviously more to squeeze so your budget target is raised next month is something I always thought was daft.
The system is great at maximising potential but also great at breaking things and turning once good products into cheap junk.

[CaptainKoloth]

This is pretty typical of a problem I see all the time. Sales\marketting\share holders expect exponential growth from companies. Companies cannot just do what they do and get profit each year once they reach peak efficiency. This leads to some executive needing to justify their job each year by making up new schemes to make money until it becomes ridiculous. Their is a balance in everything and we don't seem to have the common sense to stop when it is obvious their is no further profit to be made. There is an attitude that 100% is never going to be good enough.
I get that you don't want to be complacent in the market place, but that classic sales attitude where if you make budget their is obviously more to squeeze so your budget target is raised next month is something I always thought was daft.
The system is great at maximising potential but also great at breaking things and turning once good products into cheap junk.

I've seen this as well. I'd add that this behavior is incentivized by compensation structures that reward executives who do this and cut their costs a little in the short run as a result. By the time the product or company is collapsing as a foreseeable result of their terrible decisions, they've taken their golden parachute and are sitting on their $25 million yachts waiting for their buddies on the board to call them up to run their other companies 

[Tanaka]

This is pretty typical of a problem I see all the time. Sales\marketting\share holders expect exponential growth from companies. Companies cannot just do what they do and get profit each year once they reach peak efficiency. This leads to some executive needing to justify their job each year by making up new schemes to make money until it becomes ridiculous. Their is a balance in everything and we don't seem to have the common sense to stop when it is obvious their is no further profit to be made. There is an attitude that 100% is never going to be good enough.
I get that you don't want to be complacent in the market place, but that classic sales attitude where if you make budget their is obviously more to squeeze so your budget target is raised next month is something I always thought was daft.
The system is great at maximising potential but also great at breaking things and turning once good products into cheap junk.

I've seen this as well. I'd add that this behavior is incentivized by compensation structures that reward executives who do this and cut their costs a little in the short run as a result. By the time the product or company is collapsing as a foreseeable result of their terrible decisions, they've taken their golden parachute and are sitting on their $25 million yachts waiting for their buddies on the board to call them up to run their other companies 

Boy did you guys nail it. Life of an American company:

Success!

Expand

Expand

Expand

DIE

[Zulu1966]

This is pretty typical of a problem I see all the time. Sales\marketting\share holders expect exponential growth from companies. Companies cannot just do what they do and get profit each year once they reach peak efficiency. This leads to some executive needing to justify their job each year by making up new schemes to make money until it becomes ridiculous. Their is a balance in everything and we don't seem to have the common sense to stop when it is obvious their is no further profit to be made. There is an attitude that 100% is never going to be good enough.
I get that you don't want to be complacent in the market place, but that classic sales attitude where if you make budget their is obviously more to squeeze so your budget target is raised next month is something I always thought was daft.
The system is great at maximising potential but also great at breaking things and turning once good products into cheap junk.

Well yes - but they haven't made a profit in almost 20 years of operations .... so I am not sure its more a way of finding how to make one rather than increasing it ...

[ArizonaTank]

I agree with the 'squeeze it until it dies, while the execs escape with the gold' theory. But for slightly different, but just as cynical reasons. 

Technology moves fast. Unity is in a place where to stay relevant they have to make a massive investment in new architecture, technology and maybe even vision (tighter integration with AI for example). That path takes alot of work and is risky.

Or, rather than make that investment, the Unity execs squeeze every drop of blood out of what they have, and escape before it dies. The idea is a kind of 'pump and dump' scheme. Make revenues as large as possible so you can sell off for the best price before the roof caves-in. 

We have seen this play out in hardware / software before. Zip Drives were once on top, but iomega failed to stay relevant, was bought by Lenovo and are now barely a memory. But NVIDIA kept investing in its product and stayed very relevant by meeting market needs...and now they rule the world...well almost ;)

[Destraex]

This is pretty typical of a problem I see all the time. Sales\marketting\share holders expect exponential growth from companies. Companies cannot just do what they do and get profit each year once they reach peak efficiency. This leads to some executive needing to justify their job each year by making up new schemes to make money until it becomes ridiculous. Their is a balance in everything and we don't seem to have the common sense to stop when it is obvious their is no further profit to be made. There is an attitude that 100% is never going to be good enough.
I get that you don't want to be complacent in the market place, but that classic sales attitude where if you make budget their is obviously more to squeeze so your budget target is raised next month is something I always thought was daft.
The system is great at maximising potential but also great at breaking things and turning once good products into cheap junk.

Well yes - but they haven't made a profit in almost 20 years of operations .... so I am not sure its more a way of finding how to make one rather than increasing it ...

I just assumed they had made one. If they have not, considering everybody seems to use unity, I wonder how that happened. I wonder if it was an EPIC games scenario of giving the engine away for X years until market dominance and then dropping the profit hammer. Perhaps they are non-profit? Will have to look at the companies history.

[Destraex]

I agree with the 'squeeze it until it dies, while the execs escape with the gold' theory. But for slightly different, but just as cynical reasons. 

Technology moves fast. Unity is in a place where to stay relevant they have to make a massive investment in new architecture, technology and maybe even vision (tighter integration with AI for example). That path takes alot of work and is risky.

Or, rather than make that investment, the Unity execs squeeze every drop of blood out of what they have, and escape before it dies. The idea is a kind of 'pump and dump' scheme. Make revenues as large as possible so you can sell off for the best price before the roof caves-in. 

We have seen this play out in hardware / software before. Zip Drives were once on top, but iomega failed to stay relevant, was bought by Lenovo and are now barely a memory. But NVIDIA kept investing in its product and stayed very relevant by meeting market needs...and now they rule the world...well almost ;)

Slow and steady with a passion for the industry is best practise. The pump and dump number crunchers are the worst for society in the long run.

[smittyohio]

There's absolutely no way they don't walk this back.  They are going to get sued into oblivion by current and past developers.  Even if they are within their rights, which is extremely doubtful, the cost of litigation will bankrupt them. Do they need a way to increase revenue?  Sure.  But collecting for installs is absolutely not the way to do it.  Just read a great article on Gamesradar with interviews from developers.

[JasonPratt]

Did the interview clarify whether the Unity publishers have made any profit from the engine in 20 years or whatever?

[CaptainKoloth]

There's absolutely no way they don't walk this back.  They are going to get sued into oblivion by current and past developers.  Even if they are within their rights, which is extremely doubtful, the cost of litigation will bankrupt them. Do they need a way to increase revenue?  Sure.  But collecting for installs is absolutely not the way to do it.  Just read a great article on Gamesradar with interviews from developers.

Sued on what grounds? Changing your payment policy to a ridiculous and unfair one isn't illegal.

[smittyohio]

There's absolutely no way they don't walk this back.  They are going to get sued into oblivion by current and past developers.  Even if they are within their rights, which is extremely doubtful, the cost of litigation will bankrupt them. Do they need a way to increase revenue?  Sure.  But collecting for installs is absolutely not the way to do it.  Just read a great article on Gamesradar with interviews from developers.

Sued on what grounds? Changing your payment policy to a ridiculous and unfair one isn't illegal.

I don't know what grounds, but developers are already investigating lawsuits.