The Unity Games That Could be Impacted Most by Controversial Fees, From Silksong to Cult of the Lamb - IGN - eviltoast
  • simple@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    132
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s actually neither of those, the biggest impact is free-to-play games. Hearthstone, Legends of Runeterra, virtually every Unity mobile game in the market… Having to pay per install has huge potential for abuse and can cost a fortune for games with millions of downloads.

    • falkerie71@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      94
      ·
      1 year ago

      JFC, I just learned that they are retroactively applying this new rule. This means that games that are out already or have been on sale for multiple years will have to pay the runtime fee too. Insane. They can bankrupt a studio before they even release their next game.

            • vanontom@geddit.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Hope enough teams can band together and file jointly, combined with decent fundraising and fair lawyers.

              Fuck these Unity execs and their ilk. I guess they need more motivation to run a business properly, and not be rampaging sociopaths and enshittification experts. Perhaps some lawyers and lawmakers can offer them some humiliation and fear of personally feeling the consequences of their actions.

        • BURN@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because they’re not charging for previous installs, not new ones, and they operate technically on a free “subscription” model it’s going to be hard to challenge legally

      • Cavemanfreak@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think they can enforce that, right? I assume that would be a change of the contract, which they can’t just do willy nilly.

      • dust_accelerator@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I think that’s straight up illegal and I would simply refuse to pay.

        If they can retroactively change terms, why can’t I, as a bonafide counterparty in that agreement? Maybe something like a 100% discount on runtime fees for days that end with ‘y’.

        Otherwise I could simply “retroactively apply” a 100% discount on my lease or new car purchase.

        The correct answer and what all studios/devs should do: tell them to retroactively pound sand and ditch Unity for all future projects.

        • Heavybell@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          New installs not new releases. So if you put out a game a few years back and suddenly a bunch of people start installing it on their new PCs, you’d get hit with this fee… assuming it is legally enforceable.

          Hell, even if it isn’t strictly legally enforceable, if you still need to deal with Unity in some way in future you could be forced into dealing with this fee in order to get Unity’s cooperation.

          • AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh yeah good point. The word “retroactively” just gave me the idea that it would apply to old installs, because this whole thing is about installs.

            Still, that is a major dick move.

    • Cheers@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pricing should protect indie and small businesses. When it destroys those, we need government to step in because we’re on track to create oligarchs in every industry that are too big to fail.