I think it’s totally fair. I don’t know if this is the right take here but I think we as gamers have limited power in this situation as we’re not really Unity’s customers. It’s the developers who have the power to move away from or limit their use of Unity and pressure them to change this decision especially as good alternatives exist already in the market. I know this doesn’t help for existing games but hopefully they can at least get Unity not to make these fees retroactive, seems legally questionable to me as a layman at least.
Maybe one easy thing us gamers can do is to block unity domains at the network level. I’m not sure how they track installs but I’m guessing it must include some kind of phone home.
I know this doesn’t help for existing games but hopefully they can at least get Unity not to make these fees retroactive, seems legally questionable to me as a layman at least.
I’ve yet to see a coherent explanation for how Unity could even legally do that. As far as I know their previous Terms of Service did not include any mention of “also we can tack on additional fees whenever we want even for products that have already been developed” or “by agreeing to this version of the Terms of Service you permanently agree to any future versions of the Terms of Service”, and even if it did I highly doubt that would be enforceable. They’re trying to retroactively apply a fee structure that wasn’t agreed to.
It’s also telling that (according to Ars Technica) they specifically claim that this new fee structure isn’t “royalties” and thus not subject to any protections afforded to royalty agreements. Methinks the lady doth protest too much and all that.
Unity licenses are sold as a subscription. When the subscription runs out, you either have to renew it and accept the new terms, or lose the license and stop distributing your game.
Okay, so even assuming that’s the case, “stopping distribution” is different than “we’re gonna charge you for installs of copies you’ve already sold”. Still not seeing how that’s legal.
Naturally they only get to charge for already-sold copies if you accept the new terms that include the charges. As for how it’s legal to include those charges in the new terms to begin with, I guess you’d have to ask a contract lawyer. Presumably Unity’s own lawyers are convinced they can get away with it, or they wouldn’t have done it.
I’m inclined to agree with you on this. I have made it a point to remove wishlisted games that were Unity based, at least for now anyway. But yes, I think this is going to more be with the devs to move away from Unity before anything will actually change.
Avoiding unity games hurts the game Devs far more then unity. Even if they move away from it for their next game they might not be able to for currently released ones.
I think it’s totally fair. I don’t know if this is the right take here but I think we as gamers have limited power in this situation as we’re not really Unity’s customers. It’s the developers who have the power to move away from or limit their use of Unity and pressure them to change this decision especially as good alternatives exist already in the market. I know this doesn’t help for existing games but hopefully they can at least get Unity not to make these fees retroactive, seems legally questionable to me as a layman at least.
Maybe one easy thing us gamers can do is to block unity domains at the network level. I’m not sure how they track installs but I’m guessing it must include some kind of phone home.
deleted by creator
Good pirates firewall their loot anyway.
I’ve yet to see a coherent explanation for how Unity could even legally do that. As far as I know their previous Terms of Service did not include any mention of “also we can tack on additional fees whenever we want even for products that have already been developed” or “by agreeing to this version of the Terms of Service you permanently agree to any future versions of the Terms of Service”, and even if it did I highly doubt that would be enforceable. They’re trying to retroactively apply a fee structure that wasn’t agreed to.
It’s also telling that (according to Ars Technica) they specifically claim that this new fee structure isn’t “royalties” and thus not subject to any protections afforded to royalty agreements. Methinks the lady doth protest too much and all that.
Unity licenses are sold as a subscription. When the subscription runs out, you either have to renew it and accept the new terms, or lose the license and stop distributing your game.
Okay, so even assuming that’s the case, “stopping distribution” is different than “we’re gonna charge you for installs of copies you’ve already sold”. Still not seeing how that’s legal.
Naturally they only get to charge for already-sold copies if you accept the new terms that include the charges. As for how it’s legal to include those charges in the new terms to begin with, I guess you’d have to ask a contract lawyer. Presumably Unity’s own lawyers are convinced they can get away with it, or they wouldn’t have done it.
it might be cdp.cloud.unity3d.com. i have this domain try to call home but my pi-hole catches it
I’m inclined to agree with you on this. I have made it a point to remove wishlisted games that were Unity based, at least for now anyway. But yes, I think this is going to more be with the devs to move away from Unity before anything will actually change.
Avoiding unity games hurts the game Devs far more then unity. Even if they move away from it for their next game they might not be able to for currently released ones.