Reminder that Godot exists for anyone who needs to hear it.
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
233 points (96.4% liked)
Technology
59086 readers
3746 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Godot
I feel like I have been waiting for that guy forever.
Godot 4.0 is quite good. As long as your game doesn't use precanned store assets,.its fantastic.
Twas a joke
load more comments
(2 replies)
Yeah, in light of the existence and steady improvement of the Godot engine, feels like not a great time to be pissing off a lot of your customers.
Definitely going Godot for the future. Just the knowledge that I don't have to worry about licensing is priceless.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I don't think people realize how horrifying these addendums are.
Not only do they not really fix the issue, but they prove that no, yeah, they hadn't thought about the possibility of "install bombing" at all until just now and it would totally have triggered massive fees.
I mean, the announcement was terribly worded, and some of the stuff (like wha't a "monthly fee" or a "retroactive fee") were very unclear, so you could hold out hope that they knew what they wanted to do and were just bad at explaining it.
But nope, that ship has sailed. They clearly didn't give this any amount of thought.
So yeah, I'm more worried about it now than I was yesterday, believe it or not. Like, a LOT more.
Yeah this feels like Wizard of the Coast's first response to the OGL drama. Make some changes that are technically better than the first terrible system, but is ultimately still completely unacceptable. WotC eventually had to walk back everything, we'll see if Unity does the same.
I mean, they have to.
But honestly at this point that's not even enough. You know they tried, you know whatever need for cash they were trying to fulfill remains. It's one thing to let that go when buying a piece of software that you just... have, but building an entire business on top of this middleware and knowing you have a business relationship with them indefinitely as a result?
At this point it's a dealbreaker. You can't trust them again. If I start a new dev studio tomorrow Unity would not even be in the running to start choosing an engine. They made themselves into a liability overnight. It's stunning. I don't know what the hell they're putting in the filtered, flavored water they sell to executives, but this year has been an endless chain of self-immolation I had never witnessed before.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm sure the CEO put plenty of thought in how much they could cash out before destroying the company and moving on to the next company to destroy
He comes from EA, I'm not surprised
Still an enormous nope. Both for the developers and the users. How do you check if a game has already been installed once? What data are you gonna steal to check if it has been installed already?
They'd have to get steam to tell them each time a game was downloaded to a different device so they could invoice. And apple.. and google... and random websites..
Or they make the client phone home each time it's run, which is going to cause its own mess of issues (firewalls, that kind of thing.. some of the corporate firewalls we run our app behind would raise lots of alarm bells at something like that).
The announcement says they'll still charge per device, so I'd guess they either hash your hardware and send it over or leave some garbage data in your registry on uninstall.
Either way, not a solution to the problem at all. In that even with a single per-user fee this is still bad.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Lol get this, I don't know if I heard right, but the install count was based on their own telemetry added to the game. SO if someone pirated your game, it could still count as an install.
Yep. Unity gets to decide how much you owe them. And there’s no way you can verify that they’re telling the truth.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Ngl I was expecting them to walk it back a bit. It's a tactic to announce something so absolutely absurd that it makes what you actually want to do look more reasonable. I'm still not gonna touch unity again
its a toss up that theyll even do that these days though.
companies are so bold now knowing theres a strong chance theyll get away with whatever bullshit while losing minimal consumers.
Yeah, it's not a great tactic because even if you walk it back and always intended to. People who take what you say at face value are left thinking that's what you wanted to do and might still want to do it if you can manage the PR better in the future. And the people who figure out what you were really doing see that you will lie to manipulate the reaction to what you really want to do.
Targeting installs (which based on another article with their wording they still intend to do, just with an asterisk now) was a bad approach. They should set up different payment options for the new subscription service model rather than try to fit one solution to two wildly different customer models.
This is absolutely true. I was left with a disgusted feeling towards Unity that translates to disgust and disappointment. I don't think I can trust them again after this.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It doesn't matter, they've shown their hand.
If not now, then when?
What an interesting year. This has to be the 4th or 5th large tech-centric company that's
- introduced some really shitty policy
- pissed off it's consumers
- then backtracks to some degree after backlash
Just like every other company that's done this, the backtrack is likely meant to appease the consumers before the policy gets re-introduced later. Perhaps with slightly different wording.
The back tracking isn't even a reversal. They just said they were going to keep the charges but try to reduce the impact of "install bombing".
For the studios releasing a game in a few months, it's probably too late to ditch unity, but would make sense to start looking at alternatives for their next projects.
Wouldn't be surprised if Godot explodes in popularity in the next 5 years.
I’m just about to launch my f2p Unity game after about 2 years of development and I’m going to be forced to simply shut down the project… There’s no way we don’t go negative with these install fees.
Hard to tell your development team all their work will be wasted.
Damn... that's rough.
Hopefully they'll backpedal on this decision for now (they are already getting a lot of flack). But I guess the message has been sent. Wouldn't be surprised if Unity starts bleeding users after this.
Best of luck!
Same here. My little side project has the potential to put me into debt if I choose to monetize. I guess it'll be a free release as a labor of love. After this, goodbye Unity, hello Godot.
It's too late. Cat's out of the bag. It's crystal clear to everyone now what kind of people run the company, and they're not content to fish for whales anymore.
My first thought was:
This can only apply to games that begin development after this announcement...right? Otherwise it fells like a massive bait and switch.
Some companies are already announcing the elimination of their games starting in January. Cult of the lamb, for example.
I don’t see the announcement
Indie developers react to "astonishing scumbag move" of Unity's new install charge
Quote:
Massive Monster, creator of Cult of the Lamb, shared a typically amusing post including a frog from its game pooping a Unity turd. "Quit being stinky Unity," it said.
"So, what's the impact on us? Well, we have future projects in the pipeline that were initially planned to be developed in Unity. This change would result in significant delays since our team would need to acquire an entirely new skill set.
Which blows my mind. So the developer, Massive Monster, had an open-ended agreement with Unity which allowed them to unilaterally increase prices. That's easily one of the dumbest business decisions I've seen in the gaming space. How can they build a game around an engine which gives the owner carte blanche to take whatever share of revenue they wish? While I think this is a crazy pricing strategy, I'm struggling to sympathise with Massive Monster. At minimum they should have had a lawyer browse their agreement prior to signing. I wouldn't be surprised if other gems were hidden in there about IP rights.
Every Unity developer is under the same agreement. The changes were not announced to be "moving forward". It's a change to existing licenses to use Unity. For everyone. Everywhere.
I don't know that licensing changes have been retroactive in the past. How do lawyers prevent companies from retroactively changing licensing? My guess would be to sue after the fact, which is probably why these developers are hinting that they're going to suffer economic harm if Unity follows through with this. This statement may be their lawyers doing the work they'd normally do in this kind of circumstance.
load more comments
(3 replies)
It even applies to new installs of existing games.
Installed Godot yesterday and it's starting to grow on me, I like it. Looking forward to a huge movement of studios over to Godot, which will hopefully speed up the development of Godot through further support. Is there any reliable source of data about which game engines are popular at the moment? I want to see that sweet sweet decline in Unity user base over to Godot.
I wonder if this coincides with the Apple thing on Tuesday where they highlighted gaming. Obviously, Apple isn't using the unreal engine after the Epic debacle (pun intended). So they will have to appeal to Unity devs.
Maybe Unity is trying to cut into some of, what they think, will be a boom in sales because of the new Apple lineup.
That's just the first thing I thought.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›