• @Thann@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5110 months ago

    Its not really an apology and they are still doing the runtime fee, just with minor tweaks

    • @mrsgreenpotato@discuss.tchncs.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      710 months ago

      I want to start with this: I am sorry.

      If that’s not an apology, then I don’t know what is. I’m not defending them by any means, I’ve moved my projects away from Unity over to Godot already and am not planning to go back. But you can’t argue they haven’t apologized. If they proposed their fees in this form right from the beginning, there would probably be no drama at all.

      • @gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3610 months ago

        It’s not an apology. It’s corporate doublespeak.

        The exec team, who caused this whole thing, isn’t changing. They will try something similar at some point in the future.

        Also, this “apology” entirely omits the scummy and anticompetitive (and potentially illegal in some jurisdictions) fee vouchers they were using to try to steal AppLovin’s customers, as well as the silent and sneaky update they made to their license in the interest of enabling this whole thing.

        This is ass-covering and damage control. It is not an apology, regardless of whether or not apologetic words and phrases were used.

        • @Thann@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          910 months ago

          Exactly, they’re not apologizing for the things people are pissed off at them for. Just trying to downplay their scummy behavior.

      • TheMadBeagle [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        410 months ago

        I mean, I feel like saying they said the phrase ‘I am sorry’ makes it true that it is an apology in the most literal sense, but it is sort of an asinine point, in my opinion. The comment you replied to was, from what I read into it, is saying the execs at unity didn’t regret their choice, just that they were catching flak. They would absolutely have left the original policy change in place if it wasn’t for the fact that it was going to tank their revenue. If they ever felt they could get away with this again at some point in the future, then they absolutely will try this again. It is a good victory for those who called them out, but they are not sorry that they tried and probably will try similar things in the future.

        To me, it helps to think of corporate America as an abuser (because they are). Sure, the abuser can say I’m sorry again and again every time they harm you, but at what point is it not really an apology? If they keep trying (and often succeeding) in doing it, then at, some point, I think I wouldn’t be satisfied with a hollow gesture.

  • @RealFknNito@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2910 months ago

    As someone wise and balding said “The trust is gone and there’s no getting that back. Even if they retract everything and apologize it’s gone.”

  • @Hazzard@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    28
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Seems like a sensible overhaul, hitting the major issues with the fee, but still going ahead with a version of it. Big points for me:

    • Not retroactive. Only affecting the next version of Unity, and you can even opt out of updating to skip the fee.
    • Data is now reported by the customers. Still not sure how that plan to enforce this, but it’s a hell of a lot better than some arbitrary data collection scheme being baked into the game.
    • Free version is excluded. No charging tiny side projects, or students or something, it only affects already paying customers.

    Still not sure I love charging per install as a concept, and they’ve already overplayed their hand and burnt many bridges, but at least this implementation isn’t insanely hostile. Guess we’ll see how this plays out from here.

    • Uranium3006
      link
      fedilink
      3010 months ago

      The trust is already gone. I would never use unity after all this

    • @gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2510 months ago

      That’s great but they didn’t say a single word about:

      • the silent license update they made to enable this whole shitshow, which people discovered after they changed the license and had to find archived copies of the previous license to compare against
      • the scummy and anticompetitive (and, in some jurisdictions, possibly illegal) fee vouchers they were handing out to try to nuke AppLovin’s customer base

      The retroactive fee stuff was pure idiocy, but the above points are also deeply concerning and problematic, and indicate a leadership culture that appears entirely unconcerned with business ethics. And the exec team is not changing. They will try something similar in the future.

    • Ferk
      link
      fedilink
      8
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Free version is excluded. No charging tiny side projects, or students or something, it only affects already paying customers.

      Wasn’t the free version already excluded from the changes before?

      What they have done for the Free version is set the limit to 200k (it was 100k before) and they’ll no longer be requiring the Unity logo to be shown, even on the free version.

    • BolexForSoup
      link
      fedilink
      6
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      And you can even opt out of updating to skip the fee.

      Yeah but how long is this solution really viable? It’s not “skipping” the fee. It’s just putting it off. Eventually your version won’t be supported/will lack too many critical new features. No serious studio is going to work around you if they decided to just pony up.

  • Bruisedback
    link
    fedilink
    1810 months ago

    Even after this walk back, the whole situation still sucks for everybody but Unity. Even the part about removing the “requirement to use the Made with Unity splash screen” bit seems like blatant self-preservation more than capitulation. They’ve got to be aware that there are probably consumers out there willing to boycott any game with that splash screen, leading to lower install numbers. I’m not in game dev, so I’m just talking out of my ass, but it doesn’t seem like studios are really bothered by including those pre-roll splash screens all that much.

    • Big P
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1010 months ago

      Public companies will always screw you over

  • Hexagons [e/em/eir]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    710 months ago

    I’m not surprised they walked it back. They’ve pulled the classic “new coke” trick here: put out something deeply terrible no one will ever agree to, then walk it back pretty significantly to something still shitty and exploitative, but not as bad as what you had threatened. Your customers feel like this is a win, but they’re still stuck with a worse deal than before the beginning of the debacle.