• @redcalcium
    link
    English
    378 months ago

    The new term seems very… reasonable. They took the lesson to the heart and won’t try to alter the deal again in the future, right? Right?

    • @phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      168 months ago

      They obliterated most of the goodwill they had and long term this stupid greedy move probably will have cost them more than the change could ever have gotten them. This is what quick buck exec’s van do to a company

      • @Grumpy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        68 months ago

        Cost them more? I don’t think people realize Unity’s been working at a loss every year since the beginning, burning investor money. Just shutting down is quite frankly more profitable than continuing as is.

          • @Grumpy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Almost every tech company functions in this manner today.

            Modern tech cycle is basically keep operating at a loss to increase userbase. And then one of the 3 scenarios happen. 1. Most obvious, they run out of investor money and make drastic unpopular changes to make profit as seen here. 2. Sell company to an even bigger tech company, who will then most likely kill it too. 3. Become google/meta/etc. themselves, which is the least likely scenario.

    • conciselyverbose
      link
      fedilink
      38 months ago

      It would have been perfectly fine if they did it this way to start. Tie the new licensing costs to a future engine version, give lead time before you start collecting data, and have the number be manageable.

      But trust in such an absolutely critical vendor that your entire business relies on, and they told you they’re perfectly fine trying to retroactively change contracts. The uncertainty of legal costs to protect your rights is a huge concern.