At least from my perspective, Unity isn't just trying to have the game engine and that's it. If Unity was just trying to have the game engine and that's it then i may agree with you on it being an expenditure problem. However, I don't believe this is the case. I take it that unity is like other businesses that want to grow more, expand, and make more money; so for them it is an income problem because it's limiting their capability of reaching their goals.
That’s sadly typical of bureaucracies. Just look at the U. S. Government. They’ll have record high revenues and huge budget deficits. And people think the answer is to raise taxes.
Exactly. They already got the money to use the tools with the subs money. Why should anyone halfway awake in the brain pay them an extra tax on top now just because they are bad with money management and spent it on tons of nonsense. Just so they can spend more money on more bullshit we don't agree with. And again, the tools usage was already paid for, they have zero right to ask for an extra tax on top after all those years we paid for the tools.
When the entire public is marching on your gate, you don’t just send a minion; you step up yourself. But Big John couldn't muster the courage and instead sent his sidekick Little Marc to do the pathetic apology dance...
John is off-putting and not actually a face people trust or want to hear, especially given the reddit had his ominous dull eyes looming at the top of the page for the last week. If you're making an apology and course correction, you want it to be believed, and John is the LAST person to do that. Unity as a whole is not thrilled with John either, so I would not be surprised if the choice not to have him speak for them again was internal.
@@zacharymyers6392 Good points, but they should at least wake up to the degree that they realize any apology attempt and new deal proposal will only be believed and possible to be talked about by us, the community, if everyone who approved that previous announcement going out is fired immeditely and not part of any further Unity's future decission making and talks.
35:03 Really? Oh so the board didn't receive enough "feedback" 🧐 Do you want me to believe the board of a billionaire company wasn't "smart" enough to come to the conclusion that x% of devs will be pushed towards bankruptcy? You don't need feedback for that, and if you do, you have bigger problems. IMO, there is no way this whole thing wasn't planned from the start. You know, the "bad cop good cop" strategy of business.
@@sacb0y Or may be it's you who hasn't thought about how exactly people could be bankrupted by he policy. There are lots of videos clarifying on it out there btw.
@@ziad_jkhan And I'm sure most of those are either wrong cause the announcement was so confusing or delusional that Unity thinks bankrupting devs helps it's business.
"We realize that displaying the Unity logo splash screen in your game may hurt your revenue because Unity is now universally hated so we're offering you a way to be dishonest with your user base in order to keep that sweet revenue flowing in."
Thanks for doing this Jason, although I felt you came across as an apologetic representative, but perhaps that's why he chose you to interview him? He knew you wouldn't give him a hard time.. Appreciate you doing this though, was still a valuable insight into the "thinking" at Unity HQ. Unfortunately Marc comes across in this interview as a corporate puppet. His attempts at passion feel awkward and rehearsed. I would consider the move they made to be financial and strategical incompetence and nothing short of a change of leadership will resolve this situation. He is clearly out of his depth, embarrassingly so. These are fundamental business decisions being made by people who are now entirely financially motivated. That is to be expected of course, they have backed themselves into a corner. Likely, any improvements in the engine will now purely be down to those in the trenches who have passion for the project. This of course wont work long term without real strategy and competent leadership, until then Unity will just continue to become more and more bloated. (IMO)
These questions are downright terrible. Unless it was the plan to press Marc with them, I'm genuinely confused how the host failed to notice that Whitten basically repeating himself over and over. Sure, part of it just usual corporate bullspeak "say a lot, but tell nothing", but still, 70% of these questions could be thrown away.
They picked Weimann as the interviewer because he's the softest touch in the bunch, the guy who'd smooth over or downplay all the hard-hitting questions. There's no other way to slice it; this was nothing short of a farce.
@@wendten2That is not what happened, though? These questions weren't orchestrated, in fact, quite the opposite, considering how bad they were. Like, why would you unironically let in a question "Is Unity is in dire financial situation?" What answer do you unironically expect from the one of the top executives whos job is to do make sure business goes well?
@@KeinZantezukenThe questions weren’t choreographed, but to a lesser extend cherry-picked to do minimal damage. The financial one might seem off, but it still did its job of moving the conversation away from the bonfire. The choice of Weimann as the interviewer wasn’t accidental. It was like he was there to be Marc’s personal shield. Every time Marc said something, Weimann was right there, deflecting, rephrasing, and smoothing over any rough edges, keeping anything too sharp or uncomfortable at bay. It’s like he was there to make sure Marc didn’t have to break a sweat or face the music for any of the tough stuff. The whole interview was poorly executed-just a dance around the real issues, leaving us with more questions than answers."
@@wendten2 > "The financial one might seem off" I've picked just one for the example, yet you've assumed it is the ONYL one. I have no idea what the rest of your rant is about, I have no idea what did you possibly expect from this Q&A, the answers were exactly what they would be when you interview any official rep. of a company who main goal is to stay in business. And of course they chose this guy as a safe harbor, because otherwise there would not be a Q&A or it would be with another "safe guy". Are you really that new to not realize this?
Jason if you're going to have follow up questions I have one. The TOS question you asked we didn't get an answers. The question was along the lines of what is stopping Unity from doing the same thing. And the answer should be: Legally, nothing. Marc said that TOS is in GitHub now and TOS will be changed and "we promise". OK. But legally, bottom line, period, what is legally stopping Unity from doing it again? If Unity want's to regain trust they should be straight forward and state the truth. People are already suspicious, so that kind of answer non answer just doesn't inspire confidence. Lastly, they already had provisions in TOS about older Unity releases, they already had TOS in GitHub and look were we ended up. So how is reinstating those things do anything, because is certainly didn't protect us in this case. That answer makes no sense to me. Also Marc says he believes it and wouldn't say it or write it in the blog if he didn't believe it. So does that mean I should make my decision on his integrity (which I'm not diminishing)? What if he leaves Unity next year? What we need is an ironclad legal protection, under the law, where Unity lawyer can't just get back and say that we have no choice but to accept it, like it happened this time.
I see that his "We didn't listen to enough of you" morphs immediately into "We listened to our largest customers". How about, "We read the thread we created on our own website and realized how bad this was for our users. This should never have happened."
I actually got annoyed by Jason Weimann he kept asking such weak questions, ignoring chat, excusing his own questions, wasting time with useless commentary, and acting as if he was uninformed, ignorant, and stupid thereby allowing Marc Whitten to APPEAR more credible and knowledgable and thus more trustworthy when he in reality is NOT.
Weimann's always been cozy with the unity bigwigs, which is why they handpicked him to play interviewer. When you've got a scandal as massive as this, it should be the big boss stepping up to the plate. But guess what? Big John couldn't find the backbone, so he sent his lackey, Little Marc, to perform this sorry excuse for an apology dance.
I think Jason overall did an admirable job, if one wants to get replies one can't go all agro. But the part that i find hard to accept is that he let the fella get through the point stepwise acting like Unity was all the way just thinking of the best of customers, heck, even the initial deal offering would not have been that bad, you know, just poorly communicated in some parts almost, heck, even made it like that since thinking that would be the cheaper model for most! So well thinking of the customers, you know! Come on Jason, that you let such sentences through..come on. Seriously, they charged for the tools and want an extra tax on top fo that now so they can keep on spending crazy amounts for whatever bullshit they want and try to weasel every way to make that sound acceptable. You got the money for using the tools, ever extra tax is pure endless greed and unacceptable. Pay me bakc all my sub money and then you can present me a blank slate different licensing model and if you fired all those snakes, i will maybe listen.
They haven't said the 2.5% is locked to editor versions, only the terms. So in 2, 3 or 5 years they can say ""Hey the fee is now 50%. But hope you are enjoying your fixed editor terms that have nothing to do with price". If everyone falls for this it is going to happen all over again in the future. Hardly anyone (like 3%) has noticed this and staff won't address it when asked - They are ignoring it whenever anyone asks. Jason has so far ignored it too. This was a huge part of the reason for the uproar. I feel like I am taking crazy pills
If you watch the streams, it's overly apparent that Jason is a shill. He gaslights the viewers in the first stream of the day, and then about faces when talking to Marc. So yeah, even though he says that the stream with Marc (which this video is from) is not sponsored by Unity, all signs points to it... from the emails that were sent out, to the fact that Unity supplements Jason's income quite often, as he is a Unity "Insider". As to the staff of Unity, they were ordered to not talk about it, even though all but the head honchos were against all of this. (As evidenced by the number of employees that resigned.) My Unity reps, including the people that I talked to in Tech Support, have all expressed sadness and that they can understand where I am coming from when I expressed my own thoughts on this fiasco. And that, is as closed to them saying what everyone is thinking. I don't know about you, but when I worked corporate jobs, there was a lot of things that I couldn't say. But, you're not riding a crazy train taking crazy pills. And, Jason is gaslighting people over this, to remain in "good graces" with one of his prominent sponsors. (One doesn't bite the hand that feeds them.)
You have a valid point. There are still a whole lot of points and little details they'll write in the upcoming days. Those issues would be cleared then "Hopefully"
@@BravoPhantom if the issue is not cleared that the people responsible for this are not fired, then nothing of importance cleared. and if they still think they can charge me a tax for using tools i already paid for using, they better first refund me the money i paid for the tools first.
Its absurd it will never be 50%, if any day it will be above 5% every non-mobile developer will switch to UE, just because they ruined faith and trust - it doesnt mean they will give up on purpose their own money
@@xanaramus 50% was just a random figure to illustrate the point - Which is, they decide the % at any time. If they want to take 50% they will. Like record labels and book publishers being know to take 80% from the artist. But if you trust Unity to be fair with you then that's up to you. Good luck
He is trying to weather the storm, went on vacation in his private yet or something like that.. He couldn't even muster the courage to do the interview himself.. If the stock price keep falling the next couple of week there might be a chance, if not he probably got away with yet another attempt to steal peoples money.
A lot of people are committed via time and finances, like a spouse would be, and are acting like apologists just like an abused spouse would be. This is the second time Unity "beat" them and apologized for it, "but he's working on himself, and he brought me flowers! He promised me he's going to work on himself and be better!" There are a lot of Unity RUclipsrs suffering from battered spouse syndrome. Bottom line, the CEO, John, needs to go. Complete trash and ruins everything he touches.
@@TedThomasTT i like the comparison, don't make a big fuss out of it and blow it out of proportion. unity nearly bankrupted studios with their nonsense original plan, so the comparison is not even all that outrageous considering people's livelihoods were on the line.
Exactly. Also: they have not even backtracked in full.They still think it is acceptable to ask for a tax on top of what one already pays for using the tools. they still think double and tripple dipping is fair game. and still the same people are in charge who thought it was ok to push that onto customers out of the blue and change the deal 180 in one moment after all those years, why should anyone trust those same guys who decided those things ever with anything? They have to get fired immediately if Unity wants to survive and have any chance at ever regaining even 10% of the trust. Else large majority of Unity userbase gone after their current dev cycle is gone. All Unity devs i know told me they will very carefully look at other options as soon as their current dev cycle is over. Biggest Fail of a company ever in terms of thrashing trust built up as a business partner over so many years. Those people making those decssions to put out the previous announcement should never ever be allowed to get close to such decssion making processes ever again anywhere.
A mid-level manager tries to inform and calm the community about a life-or-death situation for Unity. No one from the board of directors, no press release, no company spokesperson. I think all the explanations are just comedy. Unity continues its bad joke. It's just something done to appease public opinion. We will trust you and how to make a game. in a process that takes 1 year or more in most cases.
Never seen a mid-level manager make 20 Million from a product with a salary of 750k a year. You are a complete troll. The guy is the president of Unity Create and not some no-name. You do realize there is only 2 people earning more at Unity right? John Riccitiello himself and Visoso. Mid-level manager, LOL
For me the fact the install fee remains in any form is unacceptable. Yes they've made it optional and 'rebranded' it as an sales/runtime fee (sort of). But the point is its still there and it sets a dangerous precedent. Make no mistake the whole reason they're trying this is because they think an install fee will be more profitable in the long run than a rev share. There is no other reason to attempt it otherwise. If the community accepts this then it will be the thin end of the wedge and once people have gotten used to the idea they'll push it further. So I will not develop with Unity and I will seriously question whether I want to even buy a game made with Unity as long as this policy remains.
What are you talking about? In most cases, it's cheaper. If you don't like it, use the 2.5% rev option (I'm guessing you must create some hugely successful games if this affects you). What Unity is offering is much better than what Unreal offers, so if you're still pissed off, then you just want to be pissed off about something.
Common man... Cool down and think from everyone's aspect. You can pay 2.5% rev share if you want... For most free mobile games the runtime fee will be a cheaper option. You have what you want, why do you want everyone else to be deprived.
@@Macca15 Its the principle, not the bottom line. This is the majority holding game engine trying to open the door to charging per install. They tried to do it fast and having been successfully challenged are now going to do it slow. You either think its acceptable to charge per install or you don't. If you don't you should reject the new deal as it clearly leaves the door open for that to become the norm.
@@WeirdWizardDave But it's not per install. Watch the video. It isn't what it was before. It's not going to be for every install. And no, I'm not against it in principle. I'm against how it was originally implemented, not how it is now. You are objecting to some imagined evil. What Unity is offering is much, much better than what Unreal is offering. Objectively. Heck, you don't even need to use the Unity splash screen now. If you're still pissed off at this offering, you're not to be taken seriously. You're just looking to be pissed off for the sake of it.
Or you're imaging benevolence. It is quite clearly still the exact same concept. A charge levied on deployment of the runtime. They've dressed it up differently but the concept remains clearly the same. You can be okay with the concept. That is your prerogative but I am not and I will not do business with a company trying to normalise it. @@Macca15
Tbh I've cancelled my plan to switch to Unreal. Unity is awesome with some stupid leadership. I mean Unity as an Engine is an awesome piece of tool with amazing future. Hopefully, they'll replace the leader soon which leads to a safe and happy future.
Obviously for already in-development games nobody is going to switch engines. Even though Unity as a game engine is amazing software the developer is difficult to trust now. Management doesn't seem apologetic and it feels like they are only sorry they got caught.
Unreal has some key advantages but its much harder to use in many ways. I would love to continue to use Unity but I cannot do so as long as the leadership is trying to push through this install charge model.
@@eye776 Almost whole management is angry for the previous actions. It's only the stupid boss(es) who didn't consider asking the devs what do they want. Unity closed their offices for having a death threat from their own employees, so its obvious that management wasn't happy either. But things are way stable than before now. Hopefully there will be some solid action soon that ensures this doesn't occur again.
@@WeirdWizardDave Unreal is an entirely different beast, not going to lie about this. In terms of workflow there is nothing else like Unity on the market, especially if you also count the learning, the community and asset store. But this also means they have the market captive and current management is willing to use this as leverage against devs.
@@eye776 The only thing that keeps this strong and connected is the awesome huge community. There's not a single issue not discussed that any single dev faced. We must not forget that this community took literally YEARS to build. How can people leave and break this strong network in a day without understand the whole case. Everyone thinks that they know what is happening, but in reality everyone is ONLY PREDICTING what's happening. We must not break the community.
far from righting.... but a start a lot of faith lost and trust to be recovered it should start by absolutely assuring the TOS for current plan holders 2023 LTS be fully backed. there still remains a chasm for new sign ups and companies maturing out of the free tier. personally A tool provider should offer the revenue share option against a lower, but fix fees that companies can opt to pay a premium say additional fixed $xxx per seat and never be coerced into rev share simply by being successful or their assets locked-in
how is it a start in righting anythingwhile the same endless greed people who put up the previous announcement are still deciding things there? The same guys who thought it was acceptable to charge people to use their tools and then randomly ask for an extra tax on top as soon as you start making propper money with those tools? Those people have to go first, then we can talk about maybe restarting
Thanks for doing this! It almost felt like a bloomberg interview and needed that stock ticker, but glad Unity is righting themselves after that disaster of a decision.
Yes, great interview, but Unity is not even close to righting themselves. The only right starting step for that is everyone who put approved putting up that initial announcement is fired immediately. Then revert the attempt in full to try to get a charge on top of the sub everyone paid for years. You can suggest a tax/rev cut model if you first pay me back all the money i paid you over the years, which was the deal offered by you i accepted was the fee to use your tools in full. Again, no talks until everyone responsible for the previous announcement is fired, i will have no business offering talks or attempts to be an ongoing business partner with those people and noone else should.
Agree, this thing is so cursed by this point. Holding onto those fees is like post-WW2 Germany keeping their swastika. Drop it, bury it, and pretend it never existed, for crying out loud.
@@BravoPhantom cheaper and wiser is to pay neither because you already paid for the development of the tools and using the tools. If they pay that back, then yeah, we can talk about having a rev share model instead.
Unity has 5000 - 8000 employees. Unreal Engine has 250 - 500 employees. Looking at those numbers, this reminds me of the moment, when Elon Musk bought Twitter and fired around 75% of the workforce, while Twitter (X) still runs fine.
Jason Weimann how much did they pay you? don't tell me you didn't get paid! Those softball curated questions you threw at him must be worth something. Don't tell me you did for free! you'd be the worst shill ever. I'm going to be really angry if you made $0 bucks out of this.
I was robbed :( the questions were actually a lot harder than I'd actually expected. Definitely missed a few though, would love an unlimited amount of time to ask more sometime soon, but I got the sense that he's got a million people to talk to atm :)
Jason has had the privilege of interfacing with Unity's leadership before. I think he showed appropriate restraint in the interest of not losing that privilege just to give the short-sighted public the bloodsport they were craving. Professionals know how valuable it is to keep communication channels open.
You had a chat full of people giving you money to ask the harder hitting questions; you stole their money and didn't ask. How many times did someone pay you to bring up John Ricotello and you refused? You stole money and you're too comfortable to be doing that, @@Unity3dCollege , you gaslit your audience and made us pay for the privilege.
far from getting robbed, you robbed others @@Unity3dCollege, taking superchat after superchat and not reading them. You're a privileged older man with money, where do you get the gall to steal like that from your comfort and your ease?
Why ins´t it JR who´s apologizing? This guy above only have to apologize because the engine is stagnated for at least 4 years... Probably has nothing to do with the greedy and pathetic episode we, the community had to endure ...
It was pretty good stream, you asked very good questions which I wouldnt expect you to ask (for example how many customers they lost over this). The only bad thing about the stream was your chat. It was cesspool of people that just came for drama and nothing else. I am pretty sure most of the people werent even developers, they just wanted to be part of "public lynch" and to throw some sh*t. I am myself not leaving unity just because its CEO is an ass. Its still very good engine and I see no reason to make a rushed switch. But it was a good lesson nevertheless and I will learn Godot as well as a backup plan but I dont think its mature enough to make a switch just yet.
I have to disagree, I think he gave Marc Whitten some very soft and weak questions, allowed Marc to give corporate speak answers with no resistance, and basically kept apologizing and excusing his own questions. He kept playing up how he didn't know anything and didn't understand anything...essentially making Marc look more intelligent and educated and therefore more reliable and trustworthy.
@@writerd6910 The questions were definitely hard, tough and general. If you look at the timestamps, you'll get a better idea. It's only how Jason talked in a happy mood and made it look like not a big deal. He probably wasn't going to switch engines, so he was calm about the whole thing. Imagine if some normal confused dev was asking the questions in a raged more, it would be a whole chaotic mess with the same questions and answers. So Jason 👍.
@@BravoPhantom I watched the stream, Marc gave standard corporate speak-type answers and Jason never gave any sort of push-back. He kept acting as if he was unprepared, didn't know what was going on, and confused, allowing Marc to control the entire interview. "How can we trust that you won't pull the rug from under us again?" "Did you lie to us about having "periphery software to track false installs? What is the burden of proof? Why did you think it was okay to implement this garbage retroactively?" I could go on...Jason was a very weak interviewer and allowed Marc to dominate the encounter without any resistance.
But why? You are dealing with a company that has proven they will alter the deal not only AFTER you have agreed, but potentially YEARS after the transaction has been completed. Are you really okay with working with a company that can five years later say "You owe us money for something that happened five years ago because we say so."
Jason took other people's money, people who likely make a lot less than he does, and then refused to ask the questions they asked. You could have just refused their money, but that kind of apathetic greed shouldn't surprise me after you gave Marc the softest possible interview, the class solidarity between you two made me sick.
It's the market system that's unhealthy though. The entire socioeconomic system needs a complete redesign. Actually, a tech-enhanced gift economy might be the only sustainable way forward.
I think bringing up fortnite is totally fair. Why doesn't unity expand it's portfolio by actually creating something new to get money from instead of this really piss poor attempt at snaking money from past deals and games with a mooching sack?
yeah, not our fault or something we have to care about that they can't come up with other reasonable offerings when they feel like they need more money to be sustainable (because they spend way too much on way too much bullshit which is not improving the engine and current tools and services). We paid for the tools, we can use the tools. We even paid for the whole development of those tools. If they want to change to a rev share model, fine, pay me back all that money i paid tou for the tools, then we can talk about a new model.
Unity is obviously meanwhile lead (for a good while) by people who think they can grow in nonsensical ways to infinitum and is free to double and tripple dip on the same customers' money over and over as often as they want whenever they want. Sorry to have to wake you up John and co, you have zero right to try to charge an extra tax for us making money with the tools we already paid for getting developed and using many years. Refund us that money, then, after all those snakes are fired, we can negotiate about INSTEAD doing a revenue cut deal. no revenue cut tax ON TOP of all the money we already paid you for the tools.
Gaslighting is gaslighting It's obvious they are prepared to take even worse decisions down the road It needs big leadership change I think riccatelo was just a fall guy worse things to come unless Microsoft buys unity The moment unreal engine wins the game huge monopoly and dark times will come
but he also has the hubris and snake oil salesman attitutude of still wanting to present it as a reasonable thing that has to be done (to haveUnity sustainable) to attempt to charge people for making money with the tools the people already paid many years for using the tools in the first place..
i love the community and still a lot about the engine and even a bunch of people at Unity. But i for sure do not love anyone who approved the previous announcement, those people need to get fired immediately. And i do not accept a business partner who charged for years for developing tools and using those tools and then turns around and wants an extra tax on my earnings on top. That has to be cancelled in full or they have to refund all money i paid for using the tools if they instead want a rev share for using those tools going forward, because my money paid has financed developing those tools, too, so they have zero right to charge an extra tax now.
@@NatoshiS I think you didn't understand. Your hard work and mone.g. you invested in unit's assets and tools are still with you at no cost. They are not taking any rev share till next year's LTS release which still is your choice to use. Otherwise you don't have to pay anything.
@@BravoPhantom sadly not true. I have used Unity since the earliest versions, so i know from many times experience that when deploying to multiple platforms, in many cases one can not stick with one Unity version. Very often there will be bugs for one platform deploy or app store or OS or api rule changes of the platform require a newer Unity Editor version. Hence then i would be forced to "upgrade" to the newer Editor version which forces me to the new agreement which i do very much not agree to at all. I already paid them many years for them developing the tools and me using the tools, they have zero right to change the deal one sided to a rev share model unless they first pay me back all the money i paid them while the deal was i pay for them developing the tools and me using the tools. they already got the money for the tools from me, why should i pay them a tax on top? Also as much as Unity the company built Unity, us, the community made Unity into what it is today, too. They have no right to change the deal one sided. Again, pay me back the money and years i put into this community in many ways, then we can talk. Also, we can only talk if all those sleezy snakes who tried to push the original announcement are fired first. Else Unity can never be a trusted business partner again. Someone who changes the deal on me once after i paid them so many years will never be with me in a business agreement talk again and shouldn't be for anyone else ever either.
For all the people who are switching from Unity to something else = "You are completely stupid with no logical sense". Just consider it yourself, you just took a major decision under a day to switch your whole direction. Hopefully not, but if something similar happens to your "SWITCHED ENGINE" then what? Then you repeat your same fast decisions. Until you run out of options... We are a strong community and we must keep getting better. You are doing absolute worst of the worst to this hardly made community with your countless hours of hard work. Just cool down and think from a logical perspective. One more thing, for God's sake don't read any more comments till the next week, It'll only rage you more. Hopefully you'll understand the whole case.
yes, i wouldn't make such a big decssion over night either, good point. But also: As long as the same people who put up the previous announcement are not fired from Unity, Unity can never again be a trustworthy business partner to anyone ever again. So yes, if those people are not fired very soon, totally understandable people look for alternatives carefully and especially once their current dev cycles are completed. We built Unity as community just as much as people at Unity. They have no right to charge us for years to use the tools and then attempt to charge a tax on top as soon as we make money with said tools we already paid for using. This is insane greed and complete irreversible trust break from those people. The only way forward for talks being possible is that those people have to go who thought ok to break all business agreements and trust for such insane gree dreasons. Again, if unity needs more money to be sustainable, their fault, they should have not spent all that money we paid for such nonsense. We paid for using the tools, they have no right to ask for further tax on top. Until they accept that and fire those people, no talks.
Any developer who is making games seriously knows how challenge it is to change the game engine. Nevertheless, there are people decided to switch the engine. To me, that just means how disappointed we are by what Unity management did. I personally do not feel much sincerity for this Q&A because many key questions were just ignored, and I don't believe this poor Marc can take much responsibility for such a big decision. We are disappointed not only by this Q&A, not even by TOS change this year, but by what they have done for years. In 2019, they changed TOS and proposed Unity runtime because of SpatialOS. They ensured that this wouldn't happen again and created that TOS github repository. Now you see that they can simple remove the repository entirely, pretending nothing happened until the public is marching on their gate. And this is just one of those they have done in the past several years. Bing able to do something is quite different from really taking actions. So I fully understand and respect those don't want stick with Unity engine after careful consideration. Furthermore, if nobody switch to other engine after an event like this, there will be no reason for Unity leaders to give up their crazy plans. I'm also not trusting those companies now, but rather looking for fully opensourse projects, or creating one for my small projects. That prevents something similar to happen. I will have the choice to keep the source code and/or fork one even if, with a tiny possibility, the develop team is doing something irrational.
For you who writing nonsense !!! U didn’t know how parasite the leadership especially EX-EA that become CEO .. U dun wanna move , that’s ur problem ..!!
Unreal users are proud of their splash, but unity users are ready to pay for removal. You have to think about it Unity.
Honestly, i just thinking about it just now.😂
I always just hated that the Unity logo was first. I never got rid of it, I just had it after or besides my own logo.
Unity's splash has always come off as cheesy and cheap rather than something to be proud of. Almost like they Want people to pay to remove it.
Unreal doesn't have a mandatory splash screen. Anytime you see it's because the dev is proud to use the engine like myself
Unity does not have an income problem, they have an expenditure problem.
Which itself is a symptom of a leadership problem. John. John needs to go (the CEO).
At least from my perspective, Unity isn't just trying to have the game engine and that's it. If Unity was just trying to have the game engine and that's it then i may agree with you on it being an expenditure problem.
However, I don't believe this is the case. I take it that unity is like other businesses that want to grow more, expand, and make more money; so for them it is an income problem because it's limiting their capability of reaching their goals.
That’s sadly typical of bureaucracies. Just look at the U. S. Government. They’ll have record high revenues and huge budget deficits. And people think the answer is to raise taxes.
Exactly. They already got the money to use the tools with the subs money. Why should anyone halfway awake in the brain pay them an extra tax on top now just because they are bad with money management and spent it on tons of nonsense. Just so they can spend more money on more bullshit we don't agree with. And again, the tools usage was already paid for, they have zero right to ask for an extra tax on top after all those years we paid for the tools.
@@PhantomGanhdi And while that's true the engine side is probably the main side not pulling it's weight.
When the entire public is marching on your gate, you don’t just send a minion; you step up yourself. But Big John couldn't muster the courage and instead sent his sidekick Little Marc to do the pathetic apology dance...
John is off-putting and not actually a face people trust or want to hear, especially given the reddit had his ominous dull eyes looming at the top of the page for the last week. If you're making an apology and course correction, you want it to be believed, and John is the LAST person to do that.
Unity as a whole is not thrilled with John either, so I would not be surprised if the choice not to have him speak for them again was internal.
@@zacharymyers6392 ^ This ^
@@zacharymyers6392 Good points, but they should at least wake up to the degree that they realize any apology attempt and new deal proposal will only be believed and possible to be talked about by us, the community, if everyone who approved that previous announcement going out is fired immeditely and not part of any further Unity's future decission making and talks.
35:03 Really? Oh so the board didn't receive enough "feedback" 🧐 Do you want me to believe the board of a billionaire company wasn't "smart" enough to come to the conclusion that x% of devs will be pushed towards bankruptcy? You don't need feedback for that, and if you do, you have bigger problems.
IMO, there is no way this whole thing wasn't planned from the start. You know, the "bad cop good cop" strategy of business.
No one was ever at risk of bankruptcy regardless of the policy. Thats just nonsense and child like thinking.
@@sacb0y Or may be it's you who hasn't thought about how exactly people could be bankrupted by he policy. There are lots of videos clarifying on it out there btw.
@@ziad_jkhan And I'm sure most of those are either wrong cause the announcement was so confusing or delusional that Unity thinks bankrupting devs helps it's business.
@@sacb0y How exactly are they wrong?
@@sacb0y Let me ask you a question: Do you really trust in Unity's own "proprietary data model" for the tracking of installs?
"We realize that displaying the Unity logo splash screen in your game may hurt your revenue because Unity is now universally hated so we're offering you a way to be dishonest with your user base in order to keep that sweet revenue flowing in."
If Unity becomes open source, I'll be happy to come back to it.
Thanks for doing this Jason, although I felt you came across as an apologetic representative, but perhaps that's why he chose you to interview him? He knew you wouldn't give him a hard time.. Appreciate you doing this though, was still a valuable insight into the "thinking" at Unity HQ. Unfortunately Marc comes across in this interview as a corporate puppet. His attempts at passion feel awkward and rehearsed. I would consider the move they made to be financial and strategical incompetence and nothing short of a change of leadership will resolve this situation. He is clearly out of his depth, embarrassingly so. These are fundamental business decisions being made by people who are now entirely financially motivated. That is to be expected of course, they have backed themselves into a corner. Likely, any improvements in the engine will now purely be down to those in the trenches who have passion for the project. This of course wont work long term without real strategy and competent leadership, until then Unity will just continue to become more and more bloated. (IMO)
These questions are downright terrible. Unless it was the plan to press Marc with them, I'm genuinely confused how the host failed to notice that Whitten basically repeating himself over and over. Sure, part of it just usual corporate bullspeak "say a lot, but tell nothing", but still, 70% of these questions could be thrown away.
They picked Weimann as the interviewer because he's the softest touch in the bunch, the guy who'd smooth over or downplay all the hard-hitting questions. There's no other way to slice it; this was nothing short of a farce.
@@wendten2That is not what happened, though? These questions weren't orchestrated, in fact, quite the opposite, considering how bad they were. Like, why would you unironically let in a question "Is Unity is in dire financial situation?" What answer do you unironically expect from the one of the top executives whos job is to do make sure business goes well?
@@KeinZantezukenThe questions weren’t choreographed, but to a lesser extend cherry-picked to do minimal damage. The financial one might seem off, but it still did its job of moving the conversation away from the bonfire. The choice of Weimann as the interviewer wasn’t accidental. It was like he was there to be Marc’s personal shield. Every time Marc said something, Weimann was right there, deflecting, rephrasing, and smoothing over any rough edges, keeping anything too sharp or uncomfortable at bay. It’s like he was there to make sure Marc didn’t have to break a sweat or face the music for any of the tough stuff. The whole interview was poorly executed-just a dance around the real issues, leaving us with more questions than answers."
@@wendten2
> "The financial one might seem off"
I've picked just one for the example, yet you've assumed it is the ONYL one.
I have no idea what the rest of your rant is about, I have no idea what did you possibly expect from this Q&A, the answers were exactly what they would be when you interview any official rep. of a company who main goal is to stay in business. And of course they chose this guy as a safe harbor, because otherwise there would not be a Q&A or it would be with another "safe guy". Are you really that new to not realize this?
@@KeinZantezuken Seriously, I'm lost here. No clue what you're thinking I disagree with.
Jason if you're going to have follow up questions I have one. The TOS question you asked we didn't get an answers. The question was along the lines of what is stopping Unity from doing the same thing. And the answer should be: Legally, nothing. Marc said that TOS is in GitHub now and TOS will be changed and "we promise". OK. But legally, bottom line, period, what is legally stopping Unity from doing it again? If Unity want's to regain trust they should be straight forward and state the truth. People are already suspicious, so that kind of answer non answer just doesn't inspire confidence. Lastly, they already had provisions in TOS about older Unity releases, they already had TOS in GitHub and look were we ended up. So how is reinstating those things do anything, because is certainly didn't protect us in this case. That answer makes no sense to me. Also Marc says he believes it and wouldn't say it or write it in the blog if he didn't believe it. So does that mean I should make my decision on his integrity (which I'm not diminishing)? What if he leaves Unity next year? What we need is an ironclad legal protection, under the law, where Unity lawyer can't just get back and say that we have no choice but to accept it, like it happened this time.
The problem is the leadership of Unity and their messed up philosophy, which I don't want to understand. Shouldn't the CEO apologize?
im still quite skeptical.
I see that his "We didn't listen to enough of you" morphs immediately into "We listened to our largest customers".
How about, "We read the thread we created on our own website and realized how bad this was for our users. This should never have happened."
I actually got annoyed by Jason Weimann he kept asking such weak questions, ignoring chat, excusing his own questions, wasting time with useless commentary, and acting as if he was uninformed, ignorant, and stupid thereby allowing Marc Whitten to APPEAR more credible and knowledgable and thus more trustworthy when he in reality is NOT.
Weimann's always been cozy with the unity bigwigs, which is why they handpicked him to play interviewer. When you've got a scandal as massive as this, it should be the big boss stepping up to the plate. But guess what? Big John couldn't find the backbone, so he sent his lackey, Little Marc, to perform this sorry excuse for an apology dance.
I think Jason overall did an admirable job, if one wants to get replies one can't go all agro. But the part that i find hard to accept is that he let the fella get through the point stepwise acting like Unity was all the way just thinking of the best of customers, heck, even the initial deal offering would not have been that bad, you know, just poorly communicated in some parts almost, heck, even made it like that since thinking that would be the cheaper model for most! So well thinking of the customers, you know! Come on Jason, that you let such sentences through..come on.
Seriously, they charged for the tools and want an extra tax on top fo that now so they can keep on spending crazy amounts for whatever bullshit they want and try to weasel every way to make that sound acceptable. You got the money for using the tools, ever extra tax is pure endless greed and unacceptable. Pay me bakc all my sub money and then you can present me a blank slate different licensing model and if you fired all those snakes, i will maybe listen.
They haven't said the 2.5% is locked to editor versions, only the terms. So in 2, 3 or 5 years they can say ""Hey the fee is now 50%. But hope you are enjoying your fixed editor terms that have nothing to do with price". If everyone falls for this it is going to happen all over again in the future. Hardly anyone (like 3%) has noticed this and staff won't address it when asked - They are ignoring it whenever anyone asks. Jason has so far ignored it too. This was a huge part of the reason for the uproar. I feel like I am taking crazy pills
If you watch the streams, it's overly apparent that Jason is a shill. He gaslights the viewers in the first stream of the day, and then about faces when talking to Marc. So yeah, even though he says that the stream with Marc (which this video is from) is not sponsored by Unity, all signs points to it... from the emails that were sent out, to the fact that Unity supplements Jason's income quite often, as he is a Unity "Insider".
As to the staff of Unity, they were ordered to not talk about it, even though all but the head honchos were against all of this. (As evidenced by the number of employees that resigned.)
My Unity reps, including the people that I talked to in Tech Support, have all expressed sadness and that they can understand where I am coming from when I expressed my own thoughts on this fiasco. And that, is as closed to them saying what everyone is thinking. I don't know about you, but when I worked corporate jobs, there was a lot of things that I couldn't say. But, you're not riding a crazy train taking crazy pills. And, Jason is gaslighting people over this, to remain in "good graces" with one of his prominent sponsors. (One doesn't bite the hand that feeds them.)
You have a valid point. There are still a whole lot of points and little details they'll write in the upcoming days. Those issues would be cleared then "Hopefully"
@@BravoPhantom if the issue is not cleared that the people responsible for this are not fired, then nothing of importance cleared. and if they still think they can charge me a tax for using tools i already paid for using, they better first refund me the money i paid for the tools first.
Its absurd it will never be 50%, if any day it will be above 5% every non-mobile developer will switch to UE,
just because they ruined faith and trust - it doesnt mean they will give up on purpose their own money
@@xanaramus 50% was just a random figure to illustrate the point - Which is, they decide the % at any time. If they want to take 50% they will. Like record labels and book publishers being know to take 80% from the artist. But if you trust Unity to be fair with you then that's up to you. Good luck
Fire Riccitiello the only way to save Unity....
Over paid bean counter that ruins companies.
He is trying to weather the storm, went on vacation in his private yet or something like that.. He couldn't even muster the courage to do the interview himself.. If the stock price keep falling the next couple of week there might be a chance, if not he probably got away with yet another attempt to steal peoples money.
A lot of people are committed via time and finances, like a spouse would be, and are acting like apologists just like an abused spouse would be. This is the second time Unity "beat" them and apologized for it, "but he's working on himself, and he brought me flowers! He promised me he's going to work on himself and be better!" There are a lot of Unity RUclipsrs suffering from battered spouse syndrome. Bottom line, the CEO, John, needs to go. Complete trash and ruins everything he touches.
Pretty cringe comparing it to domestic abuse. Just call them a bunch of cunts and move on.
@@TedThomasTT because that's so much more articulate
@@TedThomasTT i like the comparison, don't make a big fuss out of it and blow it out of proportion. unity nearly bankrupted studios with their nonsense original plan, so the comparison is not even all that outrageous considering people's livelihoods were on the line.
Exactly. Also: they have not even backtracked in full.They still think it is acceptable to ask for a tax on top of what one already pays for using the tools. they still think double and tripple dipping is fair game. and still the same people are in charge who thought it was ok to push that onto customers out of the blue and change the deal 180 in one moment after all those years, why should anyone trust those same guys who decided those things ever with anything? They have to get fired immediately if Unity wants to survive and have any chance at ever regaining even 10% of the trust. Else large majority of Unity userbase gone after their current dev cycle is gone. All Unity devs i know told me they will very carefully look at other options as soon as their current dev cycle is over. Biggest Fail of a company ever in terms of thrashing trust built up as a business partner over so many years. Those people making those decssions to put out the previous announcement should never ever be allowed to get close to such decssion making processes ever again anywhere.
@@purplevincent4454 people die from domestic abuse bro, it's not the same as having to learn Godot.
Marc Whitten should go be politician with all this gaslighting, this is exactly the problem with unity management has never made a game in their life.
Then he wouldn't be able to cherry pick his interviewer. Anyone but Weimann would have left him crying like a little b*tch
A mid-level manager tries to inform and calm the community about a life-or-death situation for Unity. No one from the board of directors, no press release, no company spokesperson. I think all the explanations are just comedy. Unity continues its bad joke. It's just something done to appease public opinion. We will trust you and how to make a game. in a process that takes 1 year or more in most cases.
Never seen a mid-level manager make 20 Million from a product with a salary of 750k a year. You are a complete troll. The guy is the president of Unity Create and not some no-name. You do realize there is only 2 people earning more at Unity right? John Riccitiello himself and Visoso. Mid-level manager, LOL
For me the fact the install fee remains in any form is unacceptable. Yes they've made it optional and 'rebranded' it as an sales/runtime fee (sort of). But the point is its still there and it sets a dangerous precedent. Make no mistake the whole reason they're trying this is because they think an install fee will be more profitable in the long run than a rev share. There is no other reason to attempt it otherwise. If the community accepts this then it will be the thin end of the wedge and once people have gotten used to the idea they'll push it further. So I will not develop with Unity and I will seriously question whether I want to even buy a game made with Unity as long as this policy remains.
What are you talking about? In most cases, it's cheaper. If you don't like it, use the 2.5% rev option (I'm guessing you must create some hugely successful games if this affects you). What Unity is offering is much better than what Unreal offers, so if you're still pissed off, then you just want to be pissed off about something.
Common man... Cool down and think from everyone's aspect. You can pay 2.5% rev share if you want... For most free mobile games the runtime fee will be a cheaper option. You have what you want, why do you want everyone else to be deprived.
@@Macca15 Its the principle, not the bottom line. This is the majority holding game engine trying to open the door to charging per install. They tried to do it fast and having been successfully challenged are now going to do it slow. You either think its acceptable to charge per install or you don't. If you don't you should reject the new deal as it clearly leaves the door open for that to become the norm.
@@WeirdWizardDave But it's not per install. Watch the video. It isn't what it was before. It's not going to be for every install. And no, I'm not against it in principle. I'm against how it was originally implemented, not how it is now.
You are objecting to some imagined evil. What Unity is offering is much, much better than what Unreal is offering. Objectively. Heck, you don't even need to use the Unity splash screen now. If you're still pissed off at this offering, you're not to be taken seriously. You're just looking to be pissed off for the sake of it.
Or you're imaging benevolence. It is quite clearly still the exact same concept. A charge levied on deployment of the runtime. They've dressed it up differently but the concept remains clearly the same. You can be okay with the concept. That is your prerogative but I am not and I will not do business with a company trying to normalise it. @@Macca15
Tbh I've cancelled my plan to switch to Unreal. Unity is awesome with some stupid leadership. I mean Unity as an Engine is an awesome piece of tool with amazing future. Hopefully, they'll replace the leader soon which leads to a safe and happy future.
Obviously for already in-development games nobody is going to switch engines.
Even though Unity as a game engine is amazing software the developer is difficult to trust now.
Management doesn't seem apologetic and it feels like they are only sorry they got caught.
Unreal has some key advantages but its much harder to use in many ways. I would love to continue to use Unity but I cannot do so as long as the leadership is trying to push through this install charge model.
@@eye776 Almost whole management is angry for the previous actions. It's only the stupid boss(es) who didn't consider asking the devs what do they want. Unity closed their offices for having a death threat from their own employees, so its obvious that management wasn't happy either.
But things are way stable than before now. Hopefully there will be some solid action soon that ensures this doesn't occur again.
@@WeirdWizardDave Unreal is an entirely different beast, not going to lie about this.
In terms of workflow there is nothing else like Unity on the market, especially if you also count the learning, the community and asset store.
But this also means they have the market captive and current management is willing to use this as leverage against devs.
@@eye776 The only thing that keeps this strong and connected is the awesome huge community. There's not a single issue not discussed that any single dev faced. We must not forget that this community took literally YEARS to build. How can people leave and break this strong network in a day without understand the whole case. Everyone thinks that they know what is happening, but in reality everyone is ONLY PREDICTING what's happening. We must not break the community.
far from righting.... but a start
a lot of faith lost and trust to be recovered
it should start by absolutely assuring the TOS for current plan holders 2023 LTS be fully backed.
there still remains a chasm for new sign ups and companies maturing out of the free tier.
personally
A tool provider should offer the revenue share option against a lower, but fix fees
that companies can opt to pay a premium say additional fixed $xxx per seat and never be coerced into rev share simply by being successful
or their assets locked-in
how is it a start in righting anythingwhile the same endless greed people who put up the previous announcement are still deciding things there? The same guys who thought it was acceptable to charge people to use their tools and then randomly ask for an extra tax on top as soon as you start making propper money with those tools? Those people have to go first, then we can talk about maybe restarting
Thanks for doing this! It almost felt like a bloomberg interview and needed that stock ticker, but glad Unity is righting themselves after that disaster of a decision.
Yes, great interview, but Unity is not even close to righting themselves. The only right starting step for that is everyone who put approved putting up that initial announcement is fired immediately. Then revert the attempt in full to try to get a charge on top of the sub everyone paid for years. You can suggest a tax/rev cut model if you first pay me back all the money i paid you over the years, which was the deal offered by you i accepted was the fee to use your tools in full. Again, no talks until everyone responsible for the previous announcement is fired, i will have no business offering talks or attempts to be an ongoing business partner with those people and noone else should.
How did I miss this?!
Crooked Marc Whitten
If you cange the title and thumbnail to make it more obvious who this is, this video's gonna blow up.
The runtime fee needs to be removed.
You can pay 2.5% royalty if you want. But for most people (especially free mobile games) runtime fee is way cheaper.
Agree, this thing is so cursed by this point. Holding onto those fees is like post-WW2 Germany keeping their swastika. Drop it, bury it, and pretend it never existed, for crying out loud.
@@BravoPhantom cheaper and wiser is to pay neither because you already paid for the development of the tools and using the tools. If they pay that back, then yeah, we can talk about having a rev share model instead.
too late for EA As long as there is EA CEO, we should never trust him, especially when charging 1 dollar for every reload is so stupid.
Unity has 5000 - 8000 employees. Unreal Engine has 250 - 500 employees.
Looking at those numbers, this reminds me of the moment, when Elon Musk bought Twitter and fired around 75% of the workforce, while Twitter (X) still runs fine.
Even with their expanded business their employee numbers are simply too much.
"twitter still runs fine" 🤣
Yes, we retire from unity, with what do we replace it?
Jason Weimann how much did they pay you? don't tell me you didn't get paid! Those softball curated questions you threw at him must be worth something. Don't tell me you did for free! you'd be the worst shill ever. I'm going to be really angry if you made $0 bucks out of this.
I was robbed :( the questions were actually a lot harder than I'd actually expected. Definitely missed a few though, would love an unlimited amount of time to ask more sometime soon, but I got the sense that he's got a million people to talk to atm :)
Jason has had the privilege of interfacing with Unity's leadership before. I think he showed appropriate restraint in the interest of not losing that privilege just to give the short-sighted public the bloodsport they were craving. Professionals know how valuable it is to keep communication channels open.
You had a chat full of people giving you money to ask the harder hitting questions; you stole their money and didn't ask. How many times did someone pay you to bring up John Ricotello and you refused? You stole money and you're too comfortable to be doing that, @@Unity3dCollege , you gaslit your audience and made us pay for the privilege.
far from getting robbed, you robbed others @@Unity3dCollege, taking superchat after superchat and not reading them. You're a privileged older man with money, where do you get the gall to steal like that from your comfort and your ease?
Why ins´t it JR who´s apologizing? This guy above only have to apologize because the engine is stagnated for at least 4 years... Probably has nothing to do with the greedy and pathetic episode we, the community had to endure ...
One man's income is another man's expense.
It was pretty good stream, you asked very good questions which I wouldnt expect you to ask (for example how many customers they lost over this). The only bad thing about the stream was your chat. It was cesspool of people that just came for drama and nothing else. I am pretty sure most of the people werent even developers, they just wanted to be part of "public lynch" and to throw some sh*t. I am myself not leaving unity just because its CEO is an ass. Its still very good engine and I see no reason to make a rushed switch. But it was a good lesson nevertheless and I will learn Godot as well as a backup plan but I dont think its mature enough to make a switch just yet.
Haha. I thought I was the only one reading the stupid people typing in the chat.
I have to disagree, I think he gave Marc Whitten some very soft and weak questions, allowed Marc to give corporate speak answers with no resistance, and basically kept apologizing and excusing his own questions. He kept playing up how he didn't know anything and didn't understand anything...essentially making Marc look more intelligent and educated and therefore more reliable and trustworthy.
@@writerd6910 The questions were definitely hard, tough and general. If you look at the timestamps, you'll get a better idea. It's only how Jason talked in a happy mood and made it look like not a big deal. He probably wasn't going to switch engines, so he was calm about the whole thing. Imagine if some normal confused dev was asking the questions in a raged more, it would be a whole chaotic mess with the same questions and answers. So Jason 👍.
@@BravoPhantom I watched the stream, Marc gave standard corporate speak-type answers and Jason never gave any sort of push-back. He kept acting as if he was unprepared, didn't know what was going on, and confused, allowing Marc to control the entire interview. "How can we trust that you won't pull the rug from under us again?" "Did you lie to us about having "periphery software to track false installs? What is the burden of proof? Why did you think it was okay to implement this garbage retroactively?" I could go on...Jason was a very weak interviewer and allowed Marc to dominate the encounter without any resistance.
But why? You are dealing with a company that has proven they will alter the deal not only AFTER you have agreed, but potentially YEARS after the transaction has been completed. Are you really okay with working with a company that can five years later say "You owe us money for something that happened five years ago because we say so."
Duh, Fire Riccitolio first Unity!
Jason took other people's money, people who likely make a lot less than he does, and then refused to ask the questions they asked. You could have just refused their money, but that kind of apathetic greed shouldn't surprise me after you gave Marc the softest possible interview, the class solidarity between you two made me sick.
720p in these days
You do realize your love for AI isn't healthy? sooner than you believe AI will render your tutorials, videos and content and even your work obsolete
It's the market system that's unhealthy though. The entire socioeconomic system needs a complete redesign. Actually, a tech-enhanced gift economy might be the only sustainable way forward.
I think bringing up fortnite is totally fair.
Why doesn't unity expand it's portfolio by actually creating something new to get money from instead of this really piss poor attempt at snaking money from past deals and games with a mooching sack?
yeah, not our fault or something we have to care about that they can't come up with other reasonable offerings when they feel like they need more money to be sustainable (because they spend way too much on way too much bullshit which is not improving the engine and current tools and services). We paid for the tools, we can use the tools. We even paid for the whole development of those tools. If they want to change to a rev share model, fine, pay me back all that money i paid tou for the tools, then we can talk about a new model.
Unity is obviously meanwhile lead (for a good while) by people who think they can grow in nonsensical ways to infinitum and is free to double and tripple dip on the same customers' money over and over as often as they want whenever they want. Sorry to have to wake you up John and co, you have zero right to try to charge an extra tax for us making money with the tools we already paid for getting developed and using many years. Refund us that money, then, after all those snakes are fired, we can negotiate about INSTEAD doing a revenue cut deal. no revenue cut tax ON TOP of all the money we already paid you for the tools.
90% of the problem here was the announcement, it couldn't have been a worse announcement.
Richitelo out!
Gaslighting is gaslighting
It's obvious they are prepared to take even worse decisions down the road
It needs big leadership change I think riccatelo was just a fall guy worse things to come unless Microsoft buys unity
The moment unreal engine wins the game huge monopoly and dark times will come
End of unity
I just noticed that Marc is wearing a hoodie like Jason.
I'm glad that at least Marc has the balls to try to explain what's going on, that's courage
but he also has the hubris and snake oil salesman attitutude of still wanting to present it as a reasonable thing that has to be done (to haveUnity sustainable) to attempt to charge people for making money with the tools the people already paid many years for using the tools in the first place..
@@NatoshiS Well, I think is not a bad thing paying for a software that is constantly evolving. If the price or monetization model is not abusive, ofc
looks like im the first to sit through this 1 hour video
You mean 'skipped the video'.
@@Johannes_DC shhh don't expose me
@@blakspot2721 i did the same. ;)
It was a stream before that 😂.
Thank you. #weloveunity
We must not break the awesome community. #weloveunity
@@BravoPhantom yes!
i love the community and still a lot about the engine and even a bunch of people at Unity. But i for sure do not love anyone who approved the previous announcement, those people need to get fired immediately. And i do not accept a business partner who charged for years for developing tools and using those tools and then turns around and wants an extra tax on my earnings on top. That has to be cancelled in full or they have to refund all money i paid for using the tools if they instead want a rev share for using those tools going forward, because my money paid has financed developing those tools, too, so they have zero right to charge an extra tax now.
@@NatoshiS I think you didn't understand. Your hard work and mone.g. you invested in unit's assets and tools are still with you at no cost. They are not taking any rev share till next year's LTS release which still is your choice to use. Otherwise you don't have to pay anything.
@@BravoPhantom sadly not true. I have used Unity since the earliest versions, so i know from many times experience that when deploying to multiple platforms, in many cases one can not stick with one Unity version. Very often there will be bugs for one platform deploy or app store or OS or api rule changes of the platform require a newer Unity Editor version. Hence then i would be forced to "upgrade" to the newer Editor version which forces me to the new agreement which i do very much not agree to at all. I already paid them many years for them developing the tools and me using the tools, they have zero right to change the deal one sided to a rev share model unless they first pay me back all the money i paid them while the deal was i pay for them developing the tools and me using the tools. they already got the money for the tools from me, why should i pay them a tax on top? Also as much as Unity the company built Unity, us, the community made Unity into what it is today, too. They have no right to change the deal one sided. Again, pay me back the money and years i put into this community in many ways, then we can talk. Also, we can only talk if all those sleezy snakes who tried to push the original announcement are fired first. Else Unity can never be a trusted business partner again. Someone who changes the deal on me once after i paid them so many years will never be with me in a business agreement talk again and shouldn't be for anyone else ever either.
For all the people who are switching from Unity to something else = "You are completely stupid with no logical sense". Just consider it yourself, you just took a major decision under a day to switch your whole direction. Hopefully not, but if something similar happens to your "SWITCHED ENGINE" then what? Then you repeat your same fast decisions. Until you run out of options... We are a strong community and we must keep getting better. You are doing absolute worst of the worst to this hardly made community with your countless hours of hard work. Just cool down and think from a logical perspective. One more thing, for God's sake don't read any more comments till the next week, It'll only rage you more. Hopefully you'll understand the whole case.
yes, i wouldn't make such a big decssion over night either, good point. But also: As long as the same people who put up the previous announcement are not fired from Unity, Unity can never again be a trustworthy business partner to anyone ever again. So yes, if those people are not fired very soon, totally understandable people look for alternatives carefully and especially once their current dev cycles are completed.
We built Unity as community just as much as people at Unity. They have no right to charge us for years to use the tools and then attempt to charge a tax on top as soon as we make money with said tools we already paid for using. This is insane greed and complete irreversible trust break from those people. The only way forward for talks being possible is that those people have to go who thought ok to break all business agreements and trust for such insane gree dreasons. Again, if unity needs more money to be sustainable, their fault, they should have not spent all that money we paid for such nonsense. We paid for using the tools, they have no right to ask for further tax on top. Until they accept that and fire those people, no talks.
Any developer who is making games seriously knows how challenge it is to change the game engine. Nevertheless, there are people decided to switch the engine. To me, that just means how disappointed we are by what Unity management did. I personally do not feel much sincerity for this Q&A because many key questions were just ignored, and I don't believe this poor Marc can take much responsibility for such a big decision. We are disappointed not only by this Q&A, not even by TOS change this year, but by what they have done for years. In 2019, they changed TOS and proposed Unity runtime because of SpatialOS. They ensured that this wouldn't happen again and created that TOS github repository. Now you see that they can simple remove the repository entirely, pretending nothing happened until the public is marching on their gate. And this is just one of those they have done in the past several years. Bing able to do something is quite different from really taking actions. So I fully understand and respect those don't want stick with Unity engine after careful consideration. Furthermore, if nobody switch to other engine after an event like this, there will be no reason for Unity leaders to give up their crazy plans.
I'm also not trusting those companies now, but rather looking for fully opensourse projects, or creating one for my small projects. That prevents something similar to happen. I will have the choice to keep the source code and/or fork one even if, with a tiny possibility, the develop team is doing something irrational.
For you who writing nonsense !!!
U didn’t know how parasite the leadership especially EX-EA that become CEO ..
U dun wanna move , that’s ur problem ..!!
Marc Whitten should go be politician with all this gaslighting, this is exactly the problem with unity management has never made a game in their life.