Games

21004 readers

243 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc..
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.

Comments.

No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Unity reportedly considering cap on hugely controversial per-install fees (www.eurogamer.net)

submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A week after Unity announced dramatic changes to its Unity Engine business model - drawing immediate and widespread condemnation from the development community - the company has reportedly told staff it'll be making adjustments to the controversial new pricing plan.

As reported by Bloomberg's Jason Schreier, Unity leadership addressed employees in an all-hands meeting held earlier today (a meeting originally planned for late last week was cancelled following a "potential threat" from an employee), saying the company was "considering" introducing a cap on its hugely unpopular new per-install fees.

Unity initially caused an outcry last Tuesday, when it told developers that, on top of their existing Unity Engine licence subscription, they'd be expected to pay an additional monthly Unity Runtime Fee each time a user installed their game, starting on 1st January 2024. This would apply to all games, including those already on the market, that had made $200k USD or more in the last 12 months and had at least 200k lifetime game installs.

top 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 years ago

Yeah, that ain't gonna cut it.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 years ago

“Okay, I know you weren’t too happy about my plan to retroactively charge you for every mile you drive in the car I already sold you… What if I told you, I’ll only charge you for a maximum of… uh… 30,000 miles per year?”

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 years ago

Is the cap $0?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 years ago

How about you don't change the terms people agreed to retroactively. How about if you said "no royalties", you stick with no royalties and don't come up with some bullshit fee that works exactly like a royalty.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I had a feeling something like this was gonna come. It's an age old trick.

Do something that makes people mad and gets attention.

Let it stew for a few days while you're "considering" things.

Come out and say you made a mistake and the initial plan was misguided, present the thing you were actually planning to do instead.

Brag about how much you "care about feedback" while still doing what you want

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago

It doesn't work the same here as with B2C products. Excluding hobby developers who wouldn't been hit either way. most people paying for Unity are trying to make a living and a company eradically throwing the pricing model around is not a good look when there are altrnatives around.

People can and will go to alternatives for new projects. Unreal, if you want a marketplace and impressive 3D and Godot if you want FOSS. Not to mention the otber game engines.

It's about money here, in some cades not little amount of money.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago

What's to stop them from changing the cap at a later date?