I'm not sure if that's a win. It looks like a poor attempt to minimize the damage. Like, these sure are good news, but they just proved they are willing to try that again in the future. Maybe in a more subtle way. Or maybe that was their plan all along, I don't know. All I know is my time with unity is done.
They'll definitely try again, but at least it will probably be a couple of years. So I think existing projects that will make the bulk of their revenue in the next 2-3 years can feel reasonably sure they won't be screwed.
I think it is a "win" in the sense that, at least, existing Unity projects which are already well advanced in their development (like Insignia) can be finished without having to worry about the runtime fee. But that's it. It wouldn't be a great Idea to start a new project with Unity. Cause ofc they will try this again in the future!
yeah there was no promise that they wont try similiar things. They say the creators are the reason they love this industry yet have been progressively taken actions that are not in favor of the majority of the userbase. Moreover, they made a lead dev write this response. I gaurantee you none of the devs had anything to do with these shitty policies. It should have been some executive apologizing for there idiotic actions and not the developer who works their ass off. Even if Godot is not as capable right now, it being opensource can lead to othe community having a product that continues to grow and improve without the downside of business idiots who chase short term gains.
You know whats somewhat sad, game devs not understanding this is a type of soft signaling. The Federal Reserve does it too. They announce a policy, but not necessarily with the intention to implement it, but simply see how users respond to the announcement. It is cheap and a very instrumental way to gain information in how and by how much the post should be moved based on what studios think is fair in terms of asset pricing. It also gives good insights into user behavior. Unity has good capital stock, and switching costs are quite high for larger scale games. This is just business experimentation and its rationalizable under market uncertainty. If you have a hard time understanding it, read some academic work in economics regarding it the concept.
Honestly I was just worried as something planning to start learning game development I wanted to use unity and now I’m just glad that doing so won’t lose me money. I don’t think many big companies are truly trustworthy to begin with.
i mean kinda like adam said, i don't see this whole situation as a shocking betrayal on Unity's part. I like what he said about "I don't trust Unity any more than I trust McDonald's." Like yeah, corporate entities make decisions based on one thing and one thing alone: how do they get more money. So I mean like yeah definitely looking to alternative game engines is a good idea. But an alternative global economic system is really what we need!
I doubt this will be the last outrage thats going to occur through Unity The people at the top having so many super sketchy stories is just foreshadowing more problems
Nice video, Adam :) Personally, I fundamentally disagree with revenue share model of any kind. This is currently acceptable only in game dev community for some reason. Imagine if everyone did rev share model. Wrote a blog text in MS Word that brought ad revenue? Pay a share to Microsoft. Created image in Photoshop that sold online? Pay a share to Adobe. Took a picture with Canon camera and sold it? Pay a share to Canon. Getting a revenue share is equivalent of getting a percentage of ownership of the product. And that is on top of already paying a subscription fee. So I'm paying them for a licence, so they can get a percentage of my product revenue? Just because the model is cheaper than Unreal Engine's, doesn't mean it's good. Even if the percentage is small - I say they should decide. Either take the rev share, or take the licence. Demanding both is greedy. The only reason it's acceptable on the market for now is because there are little to no alternatives on the market. Let's wait a few years and hope open source game engines will catch up. :)
Yep, fully agree with you. Except Unity is actually more expensive than UE! If you earn between 200K and 1M you have to pay the pro license for Unity, but Unreal is free. If you earn exactly one million you have to pay up to 2.5% of that million on top of the Unity pro seats where UE is still free because with UE you pay 5% of the earning you make **after** the first million which is quite a big difference. Of course, there may be situations if you have very limited number of Unity pro seats and high earnings (at least above 2 million) Unity becomes cheaper than UE.. But it's kinda theoretical and I'm not sure if we are still talking about Indie gamedev anymore...
Honestly now you point it out, yeah, rev share is a super weird model I wonder why it's accepted under game dev. This model 100% wouldn't work in anything else
Even if you end up don't end up switching, i HIGHLY recommend you start looking into another engine(s), make small games and fiddle around with them as well, do not overspecialize in unity or they will most definetively screw over their users yet again in the future god knows how bad.
Yeah not to mention this wasn't the first time Unity has tried stuff like this and honestly Game design and solo game dev is more then an engine it's a mind and skill set always have been.
this was a really hard sentence to read tbh. You should use a lot more periods when you type. "yet again in the future god knows how bad" is a weird string of words that doesn't make sense
I feel the same way. I’m relieved I can finish what I started on the terms I originally agreed with but going forward I don’t think unity is a smart choice (based on this)
I think your take is really reasonable, in my case I jumped to Godot and still using Unity but knowing that this could happen, and it did. The positive side of the news today is that this gives a little bit of time to people to chose whether to stay or not. And also gives time to other engines to develop and grow in community. I feel Godot it’s been doing well, and I myself put some effort to spread the good word of Godot in the community. It would make me happy to see you jumping in.
I feel like everybody says hey 2.5% is half the price of unreal! But everyone "forget" the per-seat pricing that one still has to pay in addition of the revenue share (which is not the case for Unreal).
Unity seems to be taking the approach of "let's make it *seem* like we're a steal compared to Unreal." What they really need to be worried about is that Godot is up and coming, lighter weight, and targeted for their broader user base at an unbeatable price: free
@@Noxor0and anyways, they didn't say you pay both the per install fee and the 2.5% fee, they said you pay the 2.5% fee and the $2,000/year required for Unity Pro, which is correct
Aside from the trust issues I won't be going back to Unity now I've begun migrating my game to Godot. There are so many things that I actually prefer, like how simple Actions are compared to Unity's old new input sustem. Even with learning a new language and a new engine I managed to get my viewport scaling and adjusting to different aspect ratios dynamically - something I never got to a point i was happy with the whole time i worked with Unity. I'm really pleasantly surprised.
@@JasonSmith-pn6chImagine if you were a developer with some stock in there (or a team leader) and somehow you got the news with enough time... The fact that they saw it comming and reacted to it doesn't necessarily means they were part of the decision, specially knowing how agressive the CEO has been in the past, even calling those who are not as greedy as him "fucking idiots".
If they actually rolled out this plan, there would only be a minor groan over more charges. They have increased their Unity plan pricing many times and it NEVER sparked this much outrage. The issue was, plain and simple, the fact that this plan could BANKRUPT certain developers. And killing the bird that lays the golden egg, isn't corporate greed, it's stupidity. True corporate greed is actually making good product for decades whilst stradling the line charging high, but not crossing it ever to be too high. Anything else is just short term profits followed by bankruptcy of the company. But that's assuming it's a COMPANY making decisions, and not some shipjumping CEO or a puppet (like in Nokia's case).
Comanies do this thing all the time unfortunately. They make an announcement that everyone hates, make an another announcement like this to minimise damage or roll back their statement, and then they stealth roll out more or less what they originally planned to do anyway. I fear that as soon as the collective push back dies down they will slowly start rolling out the changes anyway. They know that changing engines is huge time and effort investment and that a lot of dev's can't or won't switch, at least not overnight, and they'll gladly weaponise that. I think the revenue share model is scummy either way, they've just succeded in making people swallow a more palatable version of it. Can you imagine writing a book and docs wants a share of your profit? Or you make digital art and the program you used wants a share of your print sales?
Very nuanced take and I see trust the same way. It was a bit eye opening to see how many devs apparently fully trusted Unity, and feeling betrayed by them. I hope those that claim to have switched engines do not reapeat the same attitude. Do not trust the company, trust what you legally have rights to. When this situation eventually dies down, I think the biggest win will be the changes to Unity personal. The increase to 200K and no spash screen will be great for starting developers.
I think Unity was always planning to walk things back. It was the two steps forward one step back method of telling bad news. Usually it works, people are so relieved at being "listened to" that they accept terms they normally wouldn't. There's a reason that everyone was selling shares before the install fee dropped. The part I don't know is if where they walked it back to where they wanted or if it was so bad that they walked things back even further. I never trusted Unity though, so what I'll be doing won't change.
@@adamtesterman5254 Of course not, which is why most Unity employees were against it, but obviously the people in charge thought they were going to get away with something in the end. I don't know if that something was a golden parachute or a trickle truth giant price hike, but someone was planning to run away with a lot of money. They probably still will.
Important difference between Unity's 2,5% and Unreal's 5% rev share, is that Unreal's only goes into effect AFTER the first $1 million, and Unity not specifying anything like that likely means a flat 2,5%. So if your game earns $1,5 million Unity would take $37 500, while Unreal would only take $25 000. So indie devs would probably be better off with Unreal.
Unity's $1mill is the trailing 12 months, but Unreal is lifetime. So if you have a bad year, you'd owe Unity zero. Keep in mind is much easier to spend that in the first year on dev and initial sales, then die down in following years. Obviously someone needs to make a calculator that takes absolutely everything into account, like the pro licences and employee numbers and have ALL the engines on there.
If people use the next version of Unity, and then they hike their fees again, I don't want to hear about it. Everyone should finish the projects they have and ditch this engine immediately after.
Unity spent enormous sums of money purchasing companies (some that lead to exploitative games) in the past years. Now they're changing their pricing model (raising prices) so they can invest in the engine? If I were reasonably deep into a game project using Unity, I would still release it under Unity. The pricing changes make it viable for that with the cap effectively being 2.5% revenue share (plus seat licenses). But I'd still be looking elsewhere for the next game.
You say that, but you never know. You might release a sleeper hit and bam you found yourself in a situation you never thought you'd be in. And plus - it's a larger issue than any one of us. The slope was starting to get more slippery and maybe it not longer is.
by using a closed source software with a proprietary licence that is subject to change on a whim, you are implicitly accepting that you are at their mercy if push comes to shove and they perceive they need to squeeze more from you one way or the other not your source not your code
"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."
I completely agree with what was said here. Unity as any company will do what they can to make money. This new fee plan is "fine" by my standards. Nothing remarkable one way or the other. I expect that unity will crank the dial slowly over time to get where we now know they want to be and its up to individuals and consumers to keep this and any other company in line.
I‘m a little confused. Before it was per install now it is per user engagement per month. Now if a user installs the game and uses it over a year it is count 12 times instead of 1 time, or do i read it wrong?
This take was on point. I love your professional and balanced take on this. I've been saying to people for ages, "Whatever happens to unity, this caused a massive bump to support for open source and demonstrated a unity of thought amongst developers". I couldn't find a single person defending the retroactive fees. Sure, some arguments for "the engine is too cheap, they can increase prices" but not a single person was accepting of the retroactively added fees.
I think this was the original plan. They gave out a worse plan to make these changes look more acceptable. In a month's time most people will have forgotten about the first draft.
This is a really good correction, but I still won't make my next game in unity until they put in their terms of service that they cannot retroactively change the terms of service in a way that affects developers revenue and IP.
Exploring other engines is smart, not just because of this whole Unity mess, but because having a diversified set of skills and at least general familiarity with other tools provides peace of mind and stability that doesn't rely on C-level executives to not destroy their company. I've been engine agnostic for about 3 years, and while I certainly feel for those who have dedicated a lot of time and effort to learning Unity and trying to develop their games in the engine, I am excited to see the game dev community as a whole diversifying and discovering the pros and cons of other engines for the first time (instead of just having uninformed engine wars online). Best of luck to all those in flux!
As a godot user, I know these changes are completely positive, but I just want to make a statement. As personally frustrating the changes to the trust and brand of Unity: Game Developers will adapt. Of course, Unity is a business. Game Developers need to do business to earn a living. It is easy to conflate the two, but they are *not* the same. I expect Unity devs themselves who need to make their game soon, to recoup costs and hopefully make it in this harsh industry to keep using it. On my list is to architect my own engine, but if ain’t ‘broke’ don’t fix it.
I feel better for the people who already have games made with Unity. On a more selfish note, I hope this means Team Cherry won't have to take down Hollow Knight and can continue with Silksong. I, however, will not use Unity. I'm very new to game development, and before this, I'd thought of using Unity once I learned C++. But nope. Think I may try something like Monogame, instead. Unity is dangerous and untrustworthy, it had a bad reputation even before this because of numerous glitchy games being released by people who were looking for a fast buck without knowing what they were doing, and besides, Monogame has been used for some of my favorites like Celeste and Axiom Verge (not to mention being based on the XNA that was originally used for Stardew Valley, if I remember correctly). Or I may try something like Godot, or save up a bunch of money for that new Pixel Game Maker that I saw on Steam. But not Unity.
thing is, when you go to mcdonalds and get a burger youre not not charged again mid way through it. the thing about Unity is that theyve clearly shown that they can and will at any time try and backstab you through shady practices i'm switching as soon as i finish my current project, and anyone in their right mind should too Trust is _really_ important and they've not restored it, they've just moved the goalposts
the second things die down they will just push it again it will just be gradual till its up where they wanted to start with. id say finish what your working on then not use it again
Unity is misleading people with the "its less than Unreal" thing, you gotta pay the more than $2000 in licenses PER SEAT, if you have 4 people in your team thats $8000 AND pay the 2.5% revshare. I see a lot of devs trusting Unity for future projects now, but this can be seem as a bait: make a horrible change, take it back, and now you have the power of changing things slowly over the years.
You didn't win anything. They just learned to make these changes a bit slower over a longer timespan. And if you want to release to consoles you will be forced to update to their new TOS eventually.
Ha to funny! You think u won? No they didn't go back to what it was before just less restrictive than the original change. Unity will win no matter what.
At this point the only people who should be using Unity are developers that have put too much time into an ongoing project, if you’re early enough into development to make a switch, 100% do so.
Honestly i kinda tired seeing people keep gaslighting unity devs even after the changes. I mean, we can think as bad as we want about unity as a company but can we just calm down for a moment. For me personally, it's not about unity getting back my trust but at least after all the exhausting protest, unity change their decision, meaning that the community still has bargaining position, so if they pulling out the same card in the future we can do the same. I know it's not a proportional relationship between devs and the engine but hey nothing is forever.
Good video. I'm glad unity can walk back a bit and I think people with long term unity projects will be able to release their work, which is great. I also am doubtful how much this will stick, but seeing people learning other technologies is great and I hope to see less people with eggs in just 1 basket.
I think they handled it a little better than WOTC did, but I also think that in the next 5 years they're going to lose a lot of developers as cycles finish and teams can look at different engines.
I've made my mind; As long as that greedy soul is their CEO and they are still struggling with money, its only a matter of time until they make another agressive move. I won't invest anymore in their products, the risk is high enough where it makes me uneasy.
Brother, your style is on point. They say that caring about appearance is shallow. I say that pretending humans' appearance is irrelevant is foolishness and unnatural. Videos are more fun when the people appearing in them look good. From your excellently groomed beard, voluminous hair and nice skin, you're looking great. I hope this suggests health, and I wish you well.
Honestly, I'm kind of upset about the community pushing/forcing Unity's hand to this "I'm leaving forever" attitude. Reminds me of Walmart and how they market themselves as "always low prices" while forcing farmers to take whatever money Walmart will give them or else they'll leave them dry and force them to shut down their farm. $0.20 per install after you've been successful with your title is a tiny % per sale. Even if you sell your game for $1. People were really trying hard to push the idea that some people who hate developers would waste their time to install and uninstall and repeat to stick it to the dev, $0.20 at a time. I mean... geez those people. I hope everyone that publicly told people they're leaving Unity forever and moving to another engine stay committed to their statements and leave the Unity community. Those are some toxic, entitled people about as corrupt and greedy for cash as any billionaire CEO is.
"invest in their game engine"?!? correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they fire a lot of in house developers? This "apology" sounds like a stroke from the first paragraph
I'm glad you're willing to make the decision you think is right for Insignia without being swayed by the court of public opinion. As for me, I think I'm done with for profit engines like this, personally. Even though I'm several years into implementing my project in Unity, I needed to rethink some core aspects of my approach anyway. Code can always be rewritten, and I can always tell my story another way. People have made successful games with far less powerful tools than Unity.
I agree to an extent, my only problem with eschewing for profit engines entirely is that you don't get console makers working with open source software to get it working on console. You need a corporate entity to agree to terms and licence the console SDKs. Godot looks great, but if I have to pay to get a company to port it to console then it's worthless IMO.
@@lordofthe6string Not yet, but I wouldn't be suprised to see Microsoft at least invest in building a path for Godot games to release on Xbox. As a company MS has been doing a lot of open source in recent years, and a flourishing ecosystem of indie developers is important for Gamepass.
@@lordofthe6string either way, you still have to pay console makers for the license to port. And don't be mistaken, just because unity publishes "across platforms" does not mean porting a game is completely automatic. It can still be a massive headache porting a game to a new destination.
It still contains proprietary data tech to cross-check the number of installs against the users' self-reports and look for the Always Online requirement. Unity users can get banned from opening their Unity projects, just like Adobe and Autodesk users, if they don't pay the subscription fees
As a relatively new dev who was just getting started learning, I am now really looking to get into Unreal Engine because I don't trust that Unity won't throw Indie Devs under the bus once again in like a few years perhaps. I would definitely stay with Unity if I had put a lot of time into Unity already for a Project, and then switch over after its done. But I haven't, so I'm leaving. I am so happy for you that it ends up working out for your project though, I was so mad at unity and so concerned for all the work you put in!
If this had been what they initially announced, I don’t think anyone would have a problem. Because it’s reasonable. But they have proven they are only reasonable when their greed will bankrupt them
Don't trust them. The blame is not only in Riccitiello, the stakeholders and the board of directors put him there for a motive, and he was the right guy to move to that goal. He accomplished what he was HIRED to do, so... someone ASKED him to go towards that goal. Don't ever go back to an abusive relationship because they've said "I've changed, trust me". Godot has improved SO much, it's time to change to it.
The important thing is what they do and have done in the past, not what they say. They don't have a great track record. I'd keep a very close eye on every move they make if I was working with Unity.
A lot of people are being manipulated by their greed bs and you guys don't even see it. This was a book application of giving you an outrageously unresonable notice so that the real notice looks great in comparison, and therefor, accepted without much conflict. I hear a lot the "to an acceptable level", "sufficiently", "agreeable" which means they succeeded. They spit on your face and you don't even realize it.
While this could be the case...it seems like such a stupid strategy if that was their intent. Many of the Unity devs have left and don't have any intention of coming back no matter what Unity does. Not to mention everyone is now apprehensive of Unity going forward and several seem to be thinking that learning a new engine on the side is the best course of action if Unity decides to pull this again.
These licensing will be only Applied to the next LTS. version.... 😂😂you know what... As their trailer shows like... Inbuilt ai game making plugin like that will be in the next LTS probably... So you know they playing dirty
The trust is still gone, its another damage control move except this time it looked actually professional and not delusional. Still again the trust is gone, while I don't expect the normal user to switch I hope "the big boys" (all those indie and AA companies that made a twitter statement) switch away from Unity (although obviously not before finishing any project currently in development, translating projects into different engines is a lot of resource investment) as Unity needs to be held accountable regardless.
All that this shows is that they can further arbitrarily change their licensing structure at any time. What's the point of even generating a document like this? It's not worth the photons that it's printed with.
This whole situation is reminding me a lot of what happened in the D&D and broader TTRPG community fairly recently. Wizards of the Coast had some similarly unpopular (that's an understatement) licensing changes coming down the line, and the entire community went up in arms, canceled subscriptions, spread awareness about other RPG systems, etc. WOTC made several really laughable statements to try and mitigate damage, and then eventually flat out backpedaled on basically all of the changes that the community took issue with.
Realy don't understand why people invest in software like this. They will always screw you after a while. Why not use Godot that's a game engine from the community for the community. You won't have these problems with open source licences. Escpecialy for indie game developers Godot or othere Free and Open source software is best. Maybe for a AA AAA title you want commerical software. But you are a 2D developer and then Godot is certainly perfect. Unless you always like to be at the mercy of likes of Unity
Pfft, Godot is not the best choice for mobile development. Face it, there is currently nothing to replace Unity in the mobile industry. Moreover, the transition for large companies incurs costs and requires time that they are not willing to invest. And it’s mobile developments that make money in Unity, not indie games.
For me, one reason is that if you want to work in an already established studio, known for using this or that tool. Even if you starting out as a hobbyist but has hopes of moving on to said companies some day. Or fi you already work a full-time job that uses some of the same tech stack (like c#, c++) and you want to use your spare time to make games and improve your skills (that could improve your position in your main job) at same time and this or that tool is better with that said tech. Other one is that for sure feels like your space for improvement inside a tool like Godot (for now at least) is more limited than Unreal and Unity. You can start making 2d games and some stylized 3d games but when you reach the point to move on, what to do? Learn other tool form scratch? That said, it always good to known at least at superficial level other tools and be able to change if necessary, and there is much to be said about the benefits to learning several approaches. We don't know the future anyway, even as open source could be abandoned or become standard
@@maestroinanimation.no.6055 If you are not able to maintain and enhance GD yourself, then you are at the mercy of the GD Foundation as well. I predict another call for donations in around 6 months similar to what happend twice in the recent past. Will sound like this again "Please donate as we are running out of money. If you don't the development of GD will slow down big time".
The splash screen being removed means precious little when it only counts from the revenue share version. And no retroactive TOS they have already promised us before only to turn that into another lie. Why trust them this time?
I think Unity removed Plus plan too early, should have wait until 2023 LTS is out. Right now is really awkward since I was planning to get Plus plan to remove splash screen, but can't anymore and have to wait for new version, and there's always a chance of breaking the game when updating.
The only genuine "sorry" here is the fact they didn't get their way and that they received so much push back. The CEO dumped a load of stock pre announcement so they knew what was coming. At least we now all know how little regard they have for their customers.
Nothing short of expelling the executive board, that trust has been destroyed and will most likely never come back. To seriously think that this was a good idea is incredibly short sighted and lacks awareness of how this industry operates. If they started off with this modified fee, i think people would still be upset but could work with it. Yet instead they started off with a very greedy policy, the big one is the retro application of the fee. Imagine if a car manufacture did that, for every 1000 miles they charge you a quarter for using their engine and its applied to every car you leased/purchased including the ones in the past.
If you’re waiting to win, that’s odd. This process in total cannot be rushed. The stages of grief take time to process. You’re midway through the bargaining phase of this saga. It’s going to be about another week to 3 weeks until this process moves on. John will not be a part of that.
They've only pushed back the inevitability of this happening in the future. Once they became a public company the ride to infinite profits began and that money has to come from somewhere.
I doubt this is a win. They implement a toned down version and I expect them to gradually introduce the rest gradually over a long period of time while waiting between backlashes for the anger to die down and for users to get use to the new now. This is just my expectation but I would be happy to be wrong.
Its kind of sad its even necessary for developers to have to do this, when unity did what it did. It shouldn't've come to this, but as you said it is a business first and foremost. I hope they make it better, even more than this update.
If people do not see that the install fee is going to be there going forward on new iterations of the engine then they deserve the bill they get in the future.
Might be a victory but as unity is still a public company with the same board at the helm this was more like a first skirmish of the war. Don't be naive and give your trust back, complete current projects and prepare to shift to something else. If they made the plan they did and went public with it then that shows the mindset at the top of the company, money first.
Hello! I've seen your seen graph many times in your videos, and i've searched for a way to code it, but never managed. I have also found people selling scene connector codes, but i prefer coding it myself. Could you please show us how you did it?
The way I wrote it is very complicated and I don't recommend it, because I picked apart Unity's GraphView library to get it to work, which has no official documentation or developer library. It's quite incomplete, so using a third party graph solution (at least for the node visualisation and connections) would be preferable.
7:15 I mean that is very hands off when the life of your work you put so much time into depends of it... Kinda like saying your don't need to trust/care about your government as long as they falcate your living standards... That kind of apathy got us into WW2...
Good move from them. I will just keep using Unity, don't see any reason to quit it, wasn't planning on leaving Unity even if they didn't change it. Unity is just simply still way ahead of other 2D game engines. I am building my own 2D game library so I will just use that and Unity depending on the use case.
I'm not sure if that's a win. It looks like a poor attempt to minimize the damage. Like, these sure are good news, but they just proved they are willing to try that again in the future. Maybe in a more subtle way. Or maybe that was their plan all along, I don't know. All I know is my time with unity is done.
They'll definitely try again, but at least it will probably be a couple of years. So I think existing projects that will make the bulk of their revenue in the next 2-3 years can feel reasonably sure they won't be screwed.
They will 100% try this again.
I think it is a "win" in the sense that, at least, existing Unity projects which are already well advanced in their development (like Insignia) can be finished without having to worry about the runtime fee. But that's it. It wouldn't be a great Idea to start a new project with Unity. Cause ofc they will try this again in the future!
yeah there was no promise that they wont try similiar things. They say the creators are the reason they love this industry yet have been progressively taken actions that are not in favor of the majority of the userbase. Moreover, they made a lead dev write this response. I gaurantee you none of the devs had anything to do with these shitty policies. It should have been some executive apologizing for there idiotic actions and not the developer who works their ass off. Even if Godot is not as capable right now, it being opensource can lead to othe community having a product that continues to grow and improve without the downside of business idiots who chase short term gains.
You know whats somewhat sad, game devs not understanding this is a type of soft signaling. The Federal Reserve does it too. They announce a policy, but not necessarily with the intention to implement it, but simply see how users respond to the announcement. It is cheap and a very instrumental way to gain information in how and by how much the post should be moved based on what studios think is fair in terms of asset pricing. It also gives good insights into user behavior. Unity has good capital stock, and switching costs are quite high for larger scale games. This is just business experimentation and its rationalizable under market uncertainty. If you have a hard time understanding it, read some academic work in economics regarding it the concept.
As a tool to be used for a long time，trustworthiness is the most important thing.
Exactly. I wouldn't want to wake up from messages that Unity has something in his head again
Honestly I was just worried as something planning to start learning game development I wanted to use unity and now I’m just glad that doing so won’t lose me money. I don’t think many big companies are truly trustworthy to begin with.
It's high time for indie developers to find an alternative. We know what's on their mind now.
its start with "G" and end with "T"
@@wisesonitier and spells with "G" "O" "D" "O" "T"
Unreal my beloved 😊
i mean kinda like adam said, i don't see this whole situation as a shocking betrayal on Unity's part. I like what he said about "I don't trust Unity any more than I trust McDonald's." Like yeah, corporate entities make decisions based on one thing and one thing alone: how do they get more money.
So I mean like yeah definitely looking to alternative game engines is a good idea. But an alternative global economic system is really what we need!
@@wisesonitiergodot, for anyone who hasn’t heard of it
I doubt this will be the last outrage thats going to occur through Unity
The people at the top having so many super sketchy stories is just foreshadowing more problems
Nice video, Adam :)
Personally, I fundamentally disagree with revenue share model of any kind. This is currently acceptable only in game dev community for some reason.
Imagine if everyone did rev share model.
Wrote a blog text in MS Word that brought ad revenue? Pay a share to Microsoft.
Created image in Photoshop that sold online? Pay a share to Adobe.
Took a picture with Canon camera and sold it? Pay a share to Canon.
Getting a revenue share is equivalent of getting a percentage of ownership of the product. And that is on top of already paying a subscription fee. So I'm paying them for a licence, so they can get a percentage of my product revenue?
Just because the model is cheaper than Unreal Engine's, doesn't mean it's good. Even if the percentage is small - I say they should decide. Either take the rev share, or take the licence. Demanding both is greedy. The only reason it's acceptable on the market for now is because there are little to no alternatives on the market. Let's wait a few years and hope open source game engines will catch up. :)
Yep, fully agree with you. Except Unity is actually more expensive than UE! If you earn between 200K and 1M you have to pay the pro license for Unity, but Unreal is free. If you earn exactly one million you have to pay up to 2.5% of that million on top of the Unity pro seats where UE is still free because with UE you pay 5% of the earning you make **after** the first million which is quite a big difference. Of course, there may be situations if you have very limited number of Unity pro seats and high earnings (at least above 2 million) Unity becomes cheaper than UE.. But it's kinda theoretical and I'm not sure if we are still talking about Indie gamedev anymore...
I actually agree. It's weird to pay revenue for tool I made something in which I already pay for...
Honestly now you point it out, yeah, rev share is a super weird model I wonder why it's accepted under game dev. This model 100% wouldn't work in anything else
@@mvv700 Because otherwise it would be engine licensing that cost crapton of money i guess
Even if you end up don't end up switching, i HIGHLY recommend you start looking into another engine(s), make small games and fiddle around with them as well, do not overspecialize in unity or they will most definetively screw over their users yet again in the future god knows how bad.
Yeah not to mention this wasn't the first time Unity has tried stuff like this and honestly Game design and solo game dev is more then an engine it's a mind and skill set always have been.
this was a really hard sentence to read tbh. You should use a lot more periods when you type. "yet again in the future god knows how bad" is a weird string of words that doesn't make sense
I feel the same way. I’m relieved I can finish what I started on the terms I originally agreed with but going forward I don’t think unity is a smart choice (based on this)
I think your take is really reasonable, in my case I jumped to Godot and still using Unity but knowing that this could happen, and it did. The positive side of the news today is that this gives a little bit of time to people to chose whether to stay or not. And also gives time to other engines to develop and grow in community. I feel Godot it’s been doing well, and I myself put some effort to spread the good word of Godot in the community. It would make me happy to see you jumping in.
I feel like everybody says hey 2.5% is half the price of unreal! But everyone "forget" the per-seat pricing that one still has to pay in addition of the revenue share (which is not the case for Unreal).
This
Unity seems to be taking the approach of "let's make it *seem* like we're a steal compared to Unreal."
What they really need to be worried about is that Godot is up and coming, lighter weight, and targeted for their broader user base at an unbeatable price: free
Stop spreading misinformation, it's not BOTH revenue share and 2.5%, it's one of the other whenever it's lower
@@Noxor0the 2.5% IS the revenue share
@@Noxor0and anyways, they didn't say you pay both the per install fee and the 2.5% fee, they said you pay the 2.5% fee and the $2,000/year required for Unity Pro, which is correct
I still prefer using Unity over other engine but after this debacle, the motivation to use it kind of dimmed down.
Aside from the trust issues I won't be going back to Unity now I've begun migrating my game to Godot.
There are so many things that I actually prefer, like how simple Actions are compared to Unity's old new input sustem. Even with learning a new language and a new engine I managed to get my viewport scaling and adjusting to different aspect ratios dynamically - something I never got to a point i was happy with the whole time i worked with Unity.
I'm really pleasantly surprised.
Any developer who still trusts and uses Unity after all that happened is out of his/her mind.
Those people will never finish a game anyway.
you can just say their instead of his/her /nm
@@HalkerVeilbe fair, that's not true.
@@CaptainLightner Thanks, English isn't my native language but I always aim to improve. I'll do better next time :)
@@Vyleea all good! glad I could help out a little :D and i apologise if i seemed rude at all
I feel like Unity’s reputation is still ruined while that CEO is in charge.
Multiple employees dumped stock before the announcement, not just the CEO.
@@JasonSmith-pn6chImagine if you were a developer with some stock in there (or a team leader) and somehow you got the news with enough time... The fact that they saw it comming and reacted to it doesn't necessarily means they were part of the decision, specially knowing how agressive the CEO has been in the past, even calling those who are not as greedy as him "fucking idiots".
I mean, this was their plan the whole time right? Don’t reward them for using manipulative practises. This was always how it was gonna go.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Hanlon's razor
@@libberator5891 "use me to shave your beard" -my razor
If they actually rolled out this plan, there would only be a minor groan over more charges.
They have increased their Unity plan pricing many times and it NEVER sparked this much outrage.
The issue was, plain and simple, the fact that this plan could BANKRUPT certain developers.
And killing the bird that lays the golden egg, isn't corporate greed, it's stupidity.
True corporate greed is actually making good product for decades whilst stradling the line charging high, but not crossing it ever to be too high.
Anything else is just short term profits followed by bankruptcy of the company.
But that's assuming it's a COMPANY making decisions, and not some shipjumping CEO or a puppet (like in Nokia's case).
@@rraaiin😂
Yup 🎉
Comanies do this thing all the time unfortunately. They make an announcement that everyone hates, make an another announcement like this to minimise damage or roll back their statement, and then they stealth roll out more or less what they originally planned to do anyway.
I fear that as soon as the collective push back dies down they will slowly start rolling out the changes anyway.
They know that changing engines is huge time and effort investment and that a lot of dev's can't or won't switch, at least not overnight, and they'll gladly weaponise that.
I think the revenue share model is scummy either way, they've just succeded in making people swallow a more palatable version of it.
Can you imagine writing a book and docs wants a share of your profit? Or you make digital art and the program you used wants a share of your print sales?
It's not a win, the only way to 'win' now will be to see the doors at !Unity close
Very nuanced take and I see trust the same way. It was a bit eye opening to see how many devs apparently fully trusted Unity, and feeling betrayed by them. I hope those that claim to have switched engines do not reapeat the same attitude. Do not trust the company, trust what you legally have rights to.
When this situation eventually dies down, I think the biggest win will be the changes to Unity personal. The increase to 200K and no spash screen will be great for starting developers.
I think Unity was always planning to walk things back. It was the two steps forward one step back method of telling bad news. Usually it works, people are so relieved at being "listened to" that they accept terms they normally wouldn't. There's a reason that everyone was selling shares before the install fee dropped. The part I don't know is if where they walked it back to where they wanted or if it was so bad that they walked things back even further. I never trusted Unity though, so what I'll be doing won't change.
Yup. Classic negotiation tactics and everyone will fall for it.
There is no way in hell this result was worth all of the backlash and loss of trust they received.
@@adamtesterman5254 Of course not, which is why most Unity employees were against it, but obviously the people in charge thought they were going to get away with something in the end. I don't know if that something was a golden parachute or a trickle truth giant price hike, but someone was planning to run away with a lot of money. They probably still will.
Important difference between Unity's 2,5% and Unreal's 5% rev share, is that Unreal's only goes into effect AFTER the first $1 million, and Unity not specifying anything like that likely means a flat 2,5%.
So if your game earns $1,5 million Unity would take $37 500, while Unreal would only take $25 000.
So indie devs would probably be better off with Unreal.
Unity's $1mill is the trailing 12 months, but Unreal is lifetime. So if you have a bad year, you'd owe Unity zero. Keep in mind is much easier to spend that in the first year on dev and initial sales, then die down in following years.
Obviously someone needs to make a calculator that takes absolutely everything into account, like the pro licences and employee numbers and have ALL the engines on there.
If people use the next version of Unity, and then they hike their fees again, I don't want to hear about it. Everyone should finish the projects they have and ditch this engine immediately after.
Unity spent enormous sums of money purchasing companies (some that lead to exploitative games) in the past years. Now they're changing their pricing model (raising prices) so they can invest in the engine? If I were reasonably deep into a game project using Unity, I would still release it under Unity. The pricing changes make it viable for that with the cap effectively being 2.5% revenue share (plus seat licenses). But I'd still be looking elsewhere for the next game.
im sure a lot of devs went "whoohooo" ill never see 100,000 and now 200,000 so it was never going to affect me
cope
You say that, but you never know.
You might release a sleeper hit and bam you found yourself in a situation you never thought you'd be in.
And plus - it's a larger issue than any one of us. The slope was starting to get more slippery and maybe it not longer is.
looking magnificent my guy
Hi Adam, what about Defold engine with LUA ? It seems more powerful than Godot and for 2D games it seems a good solution.
by using a closed source software with a proprietary licence that is subject to change on a whim, you are implicitly accepting that you are at their mercy if push comes to shove and they perceive they need to squeeze more from you one way or the other
not your source not your code
"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."
I completely agree with what was said here. Unity as any company will do what they can to make money. This new fee plan is "fine" by my standards. Nothing remarkable one way or the other. I expect that unity will crank the dial slowly over time to get where we now know they want to be and its up to individuals and consumers to keep this and any other company in line.
I‘m a little confused. Before it was per install now it is per user engagement per month. Now if a user installs the game and uses it over a year it is count 12 times instead of 1 time, or do i read it wrong?
It says it is initial engagements, so new monthly users basically.
This take was on point. I love your professional and balanced take on this. I've been saying to people for ages, "Whatever happens to unity, this caused a massive bump to support for open source and demonstrated a unity of thought amongst developers". I couldn't find a single person defending the retroactive fees. Sure, some arguments for "the engine is too cheap, they can increase prices" but not a single person was accepting of the retroactively added fees.
I think this was the original plan. They gave out a worse plan to make these changes look more acceptable. In a month's time most people will have forgotten about the first draft.
This is a really good correction, but I still won't make my next game in unity until they put in their terms of service that they cannot retroactively change the terms of service in a way that affects developers revenue and IP.
Exploring other engines is smart, not just because of this whole Unity mess, but because having a diversified set of skills and at least general familiarity with other tools provides peace of mind and stability that doesn't rely on C-level executives to not destroy their company. I've been engine agnostic for about 3 years, and while I certainly feel for those who have dedicated a lot of time and effort to learning Unity and trying to develop their games in the engine, I am excited to see the game dev community as a whole diversifying and discovering the pros and cons of other engines for the first time (instead of just having uninformed engine wars online).
Best of luck to all those in flux!
Awesome video. Totally off-topic, coming from someone whose bald, your hair is fabulous.
It's not a win. Unity wins, they just gave u #9 out of 10. U want to get to#1
As a godot user, I know these changes are completely positive, but I just want to make a statement.
As personally frustrating the changes to the trust and brand of Unity: Game Developers will adapt.
Of course, Unity is a business. Game Developers need to do business to earn a living. It is easy to conflate the two, but they are *not* the same.
I expect Unity devs themselves who need to make their game soon, to recoup costs and hopefully make it in this harsh industry to keep using it.
On my list is to architect my own engine, but if ain’t ‘broke’ don’t fix it.
I feel better for the people who already have games made with Unity. On a more selfish note, I hope this means Team Cherry won't have to take down Hollow Knight and can continue with Silksong.
I, however, will not use Unity. I'm very new to game development, and before this, I'd thought of using Unity once I learned C++. But nope. Think I may try something like Monogame, instead. Unity is dangerous and untrustworthy, it had a bad reputation even before this because of numerous glitchy games being released by people who were looking for a fast buck without knowing what they were doing, and besides, Monogame has been used for some of my favorites like Celeste and Axiom Verge (not to mention being based on the XNA that was originally used for Stardew Valley, if I remember correctly). Or I may try something like Godot, or save up a bunch of money for that new Pixel Game Maker that I saw on Steam. But not Unity.
thing is, when you go to mcdonalds and get a burger youre not not charged again mid way through it.
the thing about Unity is that theyve clearly shown that they can and will at any time try and backstab you through shady practices
i'm switching as soon as i finish my current project, and anyone in their right mind should too
Trust is _really_ important and they've not restored it, they've just moved the goalposts
the second things die down they will just push it again it will just be gradual till its up where they wanted to start with. id say finish what your working on then not use it again
fresh video!
Adam, I know a good engine to use; Game maker 2 is a good one
Nop, we didn't. We still gonna pay 1,2k/yearly + rev share OR instalation share
Still less than unreal
@@Noxor0 not really, dont be fooled,
Unity is misleading people with the "its less than Unreal" thing, you gotta pay the more than $2000 in licenses PER SEAT, if you have 4 people in your team thats $8000 AND pay the 2.5% revshare.
I see a lot of devs trusting Unity for future projects now, but this can be seem as a bait: make a horrible change, take it back, and now you have the power of changing things slowly over the years.
You didn't win anything. They just learned to make these changes a bit slower over a longer timespan. And if you want to release to consoles you will be forced to update to their new TOS eventually.
Ha to funny! You think u won? No they didn't go back to what it was before just less restrictive than the original change. Unity will win no matter what.
At this point the only people who should be using Unity are developers that have put too much time into an ongoing project, if you’re early enough into development to make a switch, 100% do so.
It’s way better than it was but…. …. ….
Honestly i kinda tired seeing people keep gaslighting unity devs even after the changes. I mean, we can think as bad as we want about unity as a company but can we just calm down for a moment. For me personally, it's not about unity getting back my trust but at least after all the exhausting protest, unity change their decision, meaning that the community still has bargaining position, so if they pulling out the same card in the future we can do the same. I know it's not a proportional relationship between devs and the engine but hey nothing is forever.
We aren't mad at the devs, we mad at john riccitiello
Good video. I'm glad unity can walk back a bit and I think people with long term unity projects will be able to release their work, which is great.
I also am doubtful how much this will stick, but seeing people learning other technologies is great and I hope to see less people with eggs in just 1 basket.
They pulled the door-in-the-face technique and people thanked them for it.
I think they handled it a little better than WOTC did, but I also think that in the next 5 years they're going to lose a lot of developers as cycles finish and teams can look at different engines.
I've made my mind; As long as that greedy soul is their CEO and they are still struggling with money, its only a matter of time until they make another agressive move. I won't invest anymore in their products, the risk is high enough where it makes me uneasy.
Yeah, no ty, this whole thing sounds more of the same BS,
Dev community stood up because money is involved. It was inevitable.
Unity surrenders long enough for people to forget, return to the platform, and try this BS again in a couple months.
Brother, your style is on point. They say that caring about appearance is shallow. I say that pretending humans' appearance is irrelevant is foolishness and unnatural.
Videos are more fun when the people appearing in them look good. From your excellently groomed beard, voluminous hair and nice skin, you're looking great.
I hope this suggests health, and I wish you well.
They will 100% try this again.
Honestly, I'm kind of upset about the community pushing/forcing Unity's hand to this "I'm leaving forever" attitude. Reminds me of Walmart and how they market themselves as "always low prices" while forcing farmers to take whatever money Walmart will give them or else they'll leave them dry and force them to shut down their farm. $0.20 per install after you've been successful with your title is a tiny % per sale. Even if you sell your game for $1. People were really trying hard to push the idea that some people who hate developers would waste their time to install and uninstall and repeat to stick it to the dev, $0.20 at a time. I mean... geez those people. I hope everyone that publicly told people they're leaving Unity forever and moving to another engine stay committed to their statements and leave the Unity community. Those are some toxic, entitled people about as corrupt and greedy for cash as any billionaire CEO is.
First comment first like
when the intro hit I thought he said gay pals not hey pals lol
"invest in their game engine"?!? correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they fire a lot of in house developers? This "apology" sounds like a stroke from the first paragraph
I'm glad you're willing to make the decision you think is right for Insignia without being swayed by the court of public opinion.
As for me, I think I'm done with for profit engines like this, personally. Even though I'm several years into implementing my project in Unity, I needed to rethink some core aspects of my approach anyway. Code can always be rewritten, and I can always tell my story another way. People have made successful games with far less powerful tools than Unity.
I agree to an extent, my only problem with eschewing for profit engines entirely is that you don't get console makers working with open source software to get it working on console. You need a corporate entity to agree to terms and licence the console SDKs. Godot looks great, but if I have to pay to get a company to port it to console then it's worthless IMO.
@@lordofthe6string Not yet, but I wouldn't be suprised to see Microsoft at least invest in building a path for Godot games to release on Xbox. As a company MS has been doing a lot of open source in recent years, and a flourishing ecosystem of indie developers is important for Gamepass.
@@lordofthe6string either way, you still have to pay console makers for the license to port. And don't be mistaken, just because unity publishes "across platforms" does not mean porting a game is completely automatic. It can still be a massive headache porting a game to a new destination.
It still contains proprietary data tech to cross-check the number of installs against the users' self-reports and look for the Always Online requirement. Unity users can get banned from opening their Unity projects, just like Adobe and Autodesk users, if they don't pay the subscription fees
Sounds like some kinky weird shit. Not my thing but if others like it that’s cool
As an end user, I'm not interested in games sniffing around and phoning home, either.
@@dirtywhitellama Yes, the phone-home thing is an excessively invasive DRM and opens up lots of interesting ways to abuse customers in the future
As a relatively new dev who was just getting started learning, I am now really looking to get into Unreal Engine because I don't trust that Unity won't throw Indie Devs under the bus once again in like a few years perhaps. I would definitely stay with Unity if I had put a lot of time into Unity already for a Project, and then switch over after its done. But I haven't, so I'm leaving. I am so happy for you that it ends up working out for your project though, I was so mad at unity and so concerned for all the work you put in!
unreal is much harder than unity
If this had been what they initially announced, I don’t think anyone would have a problem. Because it’s reasonable. But they have proven they are only reasonable when their greed will bankrupt them
Don't trust them. The blame is not only in Riccitiello, the stakeholders and the board of directors put him there for a motive, and he was the right guy to move to that goal. He accomplished what he was HIRED to do, so... someone ASKED him to go towards that goal.
Don't ever go back to an abusive relationship because they've said "I've changed, trust me".
Godot has improved SO much, it's time to change to it.
The important thing is what they do and have done in the past, not what they say. They don't have a great track record. I'd keep a very close eye on every move they make if I was working with Unity.
They still implemented a runtime fee, no we haven't won yet. A concession is not a removal, no runtime fee or no Unity. Period.
Don't fear learning new engine like Godot. Its important to have alternatives in case Unity pulls this stunt again in the future, and they will do it.
A lot of people are being manipulated by their greed bs and you guys don't even see it. This was a book application of giving you an outrageously unresonable notice so that the real notice looks great in comparison, and therefor, accepted without much conflict. I hear a lot the "to an acceptable level", "sufficiently", "agreeable" which means they succeeded. They spit on your face and you don't even realize it.
While this could be the case...it seems like such a stupid strategy if that was their intent. Many of the Unity devs have left and don't have any intention of coming back no matter what Unity does. Not to mention everyone is now apprehensive of Unity going forward and several seem to be thinking that learning a new engine on the side is the best course of action if Unity decides to pull this again.
These licensing will be only Applied to the next LTS. version.... 😂😂you know what... As their trailer shows like... Inbuilt ai game making plugin like that will be in the next LTS probably... So you know they playing dirty
Don't kid yourself.
You're never winning against Unity until you're using Unity.
OR until it becomes open source.
The trust is still gone, its another damage control move except this time it looked actually professional and not delusional. Still again the trust is gone, while I don't expect the normal user to switch I hope "the big boys" (all those indie and AA companies that made a twitter statement) switch away from Unity (although obviously not before finishing any project currently in development, translating projects into different engines is a lot of resource investment) as Unity needs to be held accountable regardless.
The whole drama basically is what pushed me and my friends away from developing in unity and now we're on Unreal from now on
they intentionally baited everyone into accepting a price. if you fall for it as flattery, you failed
Present the outrageous offer first. to make everything else seem palpable. Dont be fooled.
All that this shows is that they can further arbitrarily change their licensing structure at any time. What's the point of even generating a document like this? It's not worth the photons that it's printed with.
5:42 you mean sit back and let the competent businessmen handle the business side of things?
Headed for godot.
Fool me once……
Its not the best but it works.
I wouldn't say Unity is 50% cheaper than Unreal, since on top of the 2.5% cut you also have to pay for the license per seat.
This whole situation is reminding me a lot of what happened in the D&D and broader TTRPG community fairly recently. Wizards of the Coast had some similarly unpopular (that's an understatement) licensing changes coming down the line, and the entire community went up in arms, canceled subscriptions, spread awareness about other RPG systems, etc. WOTC made several really laughable statements to try and mitigate damage, and then eventually flat out backpedaled on basically all of the changes that the community took issue with.
Realy don't understand why people invest in software like this. They will always screw you after a while. Why not use Godot that's a game engine from the community for the community. You won't have these problems with open source licences. Escpecialy for indie game developers Godot or othere Free and Open source software is best. Maybe for a AA AAA title you want commerical software.
But you are a 2D developer and then Godot is certainly perfect. Unless you always like to be at the mercy of likes of Unity
Pfft, Godot is not the best choice for mobile development. Face it, there is currently nothing to replace Unity in the mobile industry. Moreover, the transition for large companies incurs costs and requires time that they are not willing to invest. And it’s mobile developments that make money in Unity, not indie games.
Godot isn't as advanced as Unity in some regards, though it is catching up. I believe some people underestimate it though.
For me, one reason is that if you want to work in an already established studio, known for using this or that tool. Even if you starting out as a hobbyist but has hopes of moving on to said companies some day. Or fi you already work a full-time job that uses some of the same tech stack (like c#, c++) and you want to use your spare time to make games and improve your skills (that could improve your position in your main job) at same time and this or that tool is better with that said tech. Other one is that for sure feels like your space for improvement inside a tool like Godot (for now at least) is more limited than Unreal and Unity. You can start making 2d games and some stylized 3d games but when you reach the point to move on, what to do? Learn other tool form scratch? That said, it always good to known at least at superficial level other tools and be able to change if necessary, and there is much to be said about the benefits to learning several approaches. We don't know the future anyway, even as open source could be abandoned or become standard
Also one could always make their own engine... it's really is a lost art.
@@maestroinanimation.no.6055 If you are not able to maintain and enhance GD yourself, then you are at the mercy of the GD Foundation as well. I predict another call for donations in around 6 months similar to what happend twice in the recent past. Will sound like this again "Please donate as we are running out of money. If you don't the development of GD will slow down big time".
The splash screen being removed means precious little when it only counts from the revenue share version. And no retroactive TOS they have already promised us before only to turn that into another lie. Why trust them this time?
I think Unity removed Plus plan too early, should have wait until 2023 LTS is out. Right now is really awkward since I was planning to get Plus plan to remove splash screen, but can't anymore and have to wait for new version, and there's always a chance of breaking the game when updating.
The only genuine "sorry" here is the fact they didn't get their way and that they received so much push back. The CEO dumped a load of stock pre announcement so they knew what was coming. At least we now all know how little regard they have for their customers.
Nothing short of expelling the executive board, that trust has been destroyed and will most likely never come back. To seriously think that this was a good idea is incredibly short sighted and lacks awareness of how this industry operates. If they started off with this modified fee, i think people would still be upset but could work with it. Yet instead they started off with a very greedy policy, the big one is the retro application of the fee. Imagine if a car manufacture did that, for every 1000 miles they charge you a quarter for using their engine and its applied to every car you leased/purchased including the ones in the past.
If you’re waiting to win, that’s odd. This process in total cannot be rushed. The stages of grief take time to process.
You’re midway through the bargaining phase of this saga.
It’s going to be about another week to 3 weeks until this process moves on.
John will not be a part of that.
They've only pushed back the inevitability of this happening in the future. Once they became a public company the ride to infinite profits began and that money has to come from somewhere.
I doubt this is a win. They implement a toned down version and I expect them to gradually introduce the rest gradually over a long period of time while waiting between backlashes for the anger to die down and for users to get use to the new now.
This is just my expectation but I would be happy to be wrong.
Its kind of sad its even necessary for developers to have to do this, when unity did what it did. It shouldn't've come to this, but as you said it is a business first and foremost. I hope they make it better, even more than this update.
Honor system for unity... HA.
Does Ludum Dare have a required theme?
If people do not see that the install fee is going to be there going forward on new iterations of the engine then they deserve the bill they get in the future.
Might be a victory but as unity is still a public company with the same board at the helm this was more like a first skirmish of the war.
Don't be naive and give your trust back, complete current projects and prepare to shift to something else. If they made the plan they did and went public with it then that shows the mindset at the top of the company, money first.
Hello!
I've seen your seen graph many times in your videos, and i've searched for a way to code it,
but never managed. I have also found people selling scene connector codes, but i prefer coding it myself.
Could you please show us how you did it?
The way I wrote it is very complicated and I don't recommend it, because I picked apart Unity's GraphView library to get it to work, which has no official documentation or developer library. It's quite incomplete, so using a third party graph solution (at least for the node visualisation and connections) would be preferable.
Thank you for your answer! It is fine, I understand. Thanks for the awesome videos as well!@@AdamCYounis
7:15 I mean that is very hands off when the life of your work you put so much time into depends of it... Kinda like saying your don't need to trust/care about your government as long as they falcate your living standards... That kind of apathy got us into WW2...
yo
Too much legalese in that letter. Unity became the Bud Light of game development.
Good move from them. I will just keep using Unity, don't see any reason to quit it, wasn't planning on leaving Unity even if they didn't change it. Unity is just simply still way ahead of other 2D game engines. I am building my own 2D game library so I will just use that and Unity depending on the use case.