Then something like this comes along and it becomes clear why it's so important that everything we rely on is, at the least, free from "I changed the deal" events.
Even if one stopped using Unity to develop new things before this change, they are still on the hook for product installs (even if they are free games), which are by the way tracked by Unity "proprietary data model".
Example: https://www.reddit.com/r/Unity3D/comments/16hgmqm/unity_want...
A few quotes from the FAQ:
Q: If a user reinstalls/redownloads a game / changes their hardware, will that count as multiple installs?
A: Yes. The creator will need to pay for all future installs. The reason is that Unity doesn’t receive end-player information, just aggregate data.
Q: Are these fees going to apply to games which have been out for years already? If you met the threshold 2 years ago, you'll start owing for any installs monthly from January, no? (in theory). It says they'll use previous installs to determine threshold eligibility & then you'll start owing them for the new ones.
A: Yes, assuming the game is eligible and distributing the Unity Runtime then runtime fees will apply. We look at a game's lifetime installs to determine eligibility for the runtime fee. Then we bill the runtime fee based on all new installs that occur after January 1, 2024.
Zero sales later, we all lost our jobs because if you show up with a new pricing model that completely upends how businesses even account for their spending and pricing, it better be the greatest fucking piece of software ever made that has zero competition or an industry standard because no one is going to use it.
Setup dualboot linux/windows, installed my 6 fav games on the linux side
Decided I didnt like that distro, wiped it and reinstalled with a new distro. then installed my 6 fav games
messed something up and decided it would be faster to reinstall again, did that and re-installed my 6 fav games.
got issues with my steam deployment, mucked about and fixed it but in the process deleted my previous install. realized i could just copy the data from the windows partition across and did that.
With this scenario I could be up for 24 install charges, despite never playing the games.
My 15 yr old son is teaching himself programing for the purpose of being a games developer and this news horrifies him. I really dont see this is going to last.
*Edit, 30 installs. forgot to count the windows installs.
That's a risk you run when the company you're buying your tools from is beholden to shareholders. Which a vast majority of the companies we can even buy tools from are/will be.
With that in mind, I a fine paying for tools I need if I understand the service behind it is massive and hard to replicate. A less controversial example is IDE's. Visual Studio has a great free Suite and a justifiable pro edition to pay for (and enterprise, but I'll leave the costs of million dollar corporations out of this). Jetbrains is pay up front (unless you use Android Studio) but their model lets you keep the version you paid a year for. These are good balances between subscription and ownership.
Of course, these game engines are doing very heavy lifting, but it's never okay to retroactively change you you monetize product you already launched. On top of all that, this plan simply doesn't sound well thought out (or actively malicious if you want to go that direction).
Tangent: I feel like you're selling many other professions a little short here. Farmers come to mind, although I admit growing up in the countryside makes me a little biased there.
As you rightly point out it is causing a justifiable lack of trust in things you actually pay for which is going to be very counter productive.
In an instance like this, I'd say "market forces" isn't entirely the wrong approach. Everyone migrates away from them and destroys their business.
One one hand we all pay a lot for quality hardware for instance, those machines aren't free. Or we see people spend ungodly amounts on keyboards.
On the other hand, I don't see carpenters paying an arm and a leg for high quality tables. Nor home architects paying millions to other architects to build their homes. So why are people expecting programmers to be forthcoming about paying other programmers to build their tools ? Sure one can't build everything by themselves, but at its core people will try to only pay for what is absolutely good value (or they have no choice than to pay), and not just throwing money at "quality tools".
https://forum.unity.com/threads/unity-plan-pricing-and-packa...
The FAQ is worth reading on its own (and very hard to believe as a Unity game dev, honestly, WTF).
Bonkers
edit?: Am i reading it right that they want to retroactively charge developers extra fees for previous installs?
I think this text i am quoting below is what they're really trying to do. They know the their new system is unreasonable. They want to force devs to use their advertising service.
"Qualifying customers may be eligible for credits toward the Unity Runtime Fee based on the adoption of Unity services beyond the Editor, such as Unity Gaming Services or Unity LevelPlay mediation for mobile ad-supported games. "
"Q: If a user reinstalls/redownloads a game / changes their hardware, will that count as multiple installs? A: We are not going to charge a fee for reinstalls. The spirit of this program is and has always been to charge for the first install and we have no desire to charge for the same person doing ongoing installs. (Updated, Sep 13)"
If you are going to develop with them, then you should want them to earn a stable profit, so their platform is around for you. You may not agree with this pricing structure, but you should hopefully want them to make money and raise their prices somehow.
However, I think it's perfectly rational to conclude that they are an unstable partner that isn't earning a profit, and it's too risky to tie your development to them as this article sort of suggests.
I just strongly suggest you either are in favor of them raising their prices somehow or switch providers, because losing over hundreds of millions of dollars every year is completely unsustainable.
Can you expand on why they lost money? Was it a market seeding thing?
No no, this is Unity
It's fine early on, especially if you have a funding backer (large company, generous VC etc). But eventually you need to produce revenue.
Worse still, once you realize this, you are perversely encouraged to lock in as many people into the "free" platform before pulling the rug. Even if that's not your initial plan.
I sincerely feel for all the indie gamedevs, this must be terrifying, I'm only commenting on the broader problem.
Often it might be a case of:
"We're doing X revenue right now. Let's do whatever it takes to (try and) increase that revenue".
Versus:
"We're doing X revenue right now. Let's use that revenue to do the best we can & improve product. Hopefully bringing in more customers, so we'll have more resources to improve product or develop new ones".
The 1st is profit focussed, leading to enshittification.
The 2nd is customer-focussed, leading to innovation & better products.
Unity clearly chose to chase profits above customer satisfaction.
I already don't like how I have to keep coming back to Windows for various tooling in my work.
they are probably spending a non small amount of money on legal, marketing and other consulting ... how can you still f*-up that bad
like has there been a single company in history which charged per install (!= per license) and had long term success (and wasn't a monopoly)
How did unity leadership misjudge their market by so much?
(Inherently there's nothing wrong with this motivation, but I've found the kinds of people who seek out these opportunities tend to be of a certain type as described here)
Those people eventually drive out the passionate and user-focused creators who were initially responsible for the innovation and success, as they focus solely on value extraction and pleasing/supporting the executive leadership.
What happens next is.. this kind of enshittification.
That remains to be seen. There's lots of noise about it right now, but if number goes up it will be hard to argue (even if it's true) that this was a bad decision.
Either way they appear to be trying corral devs into using their advertising software. LevelPlay is IronSouce.
Combine this with their Gaming services. And they would control your backend. They would get a share of ad revenue directly, because it's their ad network.
At that point (this is just my opinion) you're just sort of their employee but without the benefits.
That mostly came from the board and the executives. It’s not like shareholders really that many ways to influence company policy that much besides selling or buying their stock
So at least a license update would require confirmation of your continuing agreement with the new license, right? (whether that be silent, offering opt-out or whatever).
Otherwise "you agree to ANY future version" would equate to "we can 100% rewrite this agreement after you signed it". Doesn't seem like that would hold up in a courtroom.
Game engines ship with products & are covered by licenses. Unlike some service covered by a ToS where company can change or stop offering service at any time.
Unity silently changed the TOS to remove the clause stating you could stay with an older version of the TOS before this whole fiasco. Is that legally binding given that people probably just click “I agree”, if they were even prompted in the first place?
Is it legal that much of the digital goods we “buy” are marketed as purchases but are at best squirrelly licenses to get around letting people actually own the thing they “bought”?