I can hazard a guess as to why. Might be something to do with the fact that I only actually paid for three (heavily discounted) games in my entire Epic Games library. The rest of my library were giveaways. I suspect a lot of customers’ Epic libraries are similar.
They’re going to back off on this and replace it with something bad but not as horrible. This is testing the water, and opens the door to charging everyone money every time you install a game, not just devs.
Have an install saved on your external and want to install it next week? You’ll get charged for it as of you didn’t already pay for it.
Games you have in your steam/gog backlog? Get charged again for it when you decide to play it.
I guarantee there are investors/publishers/whoever hitting themselves right now screaming “why didn’t I think of that?”.
I think they might actually get told to fuck off by publishers, strictly because they wouldn't be making any money out of it on top of the bad publicity being passed down to them by consumers.
That’s part of the problem; they aren’t charging you for the install, they are remotely tracking that you’ve done so and then billing the dev for it.
If you grab a cracked version, did the person cracking that game also remove the install telemetry, or did they just make it functional? Can you be sure?
In many cases, the dev would still be billed for you installing the game you didn’t even pay for. Unity has no incentive to ensure each install is legitimate, as they profit from failing to catch that.
Launch the game offline. Which if you’ve ever done with a game made in the last 5 or so years and launching legitamitly, it is increasingly harder to do so.
I take my gaming laptop into work. I can launch older games without an internet connection, but stuff like red dead redemption 2 doesn’t like to start offline – presumably due to telemetry.
Hm. I guess if one can reverse the code and sniff the network then one can probably figure out all but the most sophisticated phone home evasion. Just like with cracking games, eventually someone figures it all out. Game crackers will have to add network monitoring to their toolkit if they haven’t yet I guess.
I guess the only way to be sure is to not buy those games.
My only issue there is you, as an end user installing these cracks, don’t really have a way to be sure it was removed (unless you yourself know the details of and block the phone home). It’ll have no effect on you either way, but it’ll certainly effect the dev if you miss it; it’s only gotta get through once (per install), maybe it tries until it succeeds.
I very much agree with various developers decisions to change engines. I feel for the ones that don’t really have that option.
To be clear, I’m specifically taking about pirated versions, which I figure the people using have enough interest in doing to know how or figure out how to do something like that, or even have it disabled at the start by the game crackers.
When I started Pirating games, I was just a young broke kid that wanted to play some games. I didn’t know about or even think to look into stuff like this; I just looked for working cracks.
Even now, if I hadn’t already known of this, I wouldn’t think to look for it.
I’m just saying that, between standard users and pirates, the latter is much more likely to know about and act on something like this. And, like I said, it’s also quite likely that the crackers themselves will have a workaround implemented from the start.
Sounds like pirating a copy and then trying some network fuckery... Fun!
But also if they make it bad enough I'll just do something else. I love games but if they wanna fuck that up bad enough then there are always other ways to kill time.
This is already how it works with poorly cracked games/software. The games’ crack.nfo (readme) will say something like: - Copy the .exe to the /bin/ folder, add the .exe to your windows firewall or otherwise prevent it from accessing the internet.
Maybe the gaming industry needs another collapse.
AAA needs a shake up, that’s for sure, if it’s just going to continue on it’s current trajectory of “nothing new but costs more”.
Most of the AAA’s can’t even be bothered to include as much content and as many systems as games from decades ago. You can play PlayStation 1 & 2 games that are just as complex or more complex than games releases recently. It’s all the same stuff but with more pixels and larger localization folders.
Why is Skyfield 130 GBs when at it’s core it has all the same functions as Oblivion or Fallout? Why does Octopath Traveller have a sliver of the in-game content that games like Star Ocean and Final Fantasy 9 had? Sports games and Shooters were lost causes years ago.
Indie devs have been making games that are far more fun and original than most AAA teams of multiple hundreds have been able to do in awhile.
The big guys need to return to focusing on fun. Some AAA’s can still do it. BG3 and Zelda are the current obvious examples. Those games are Fun. That’s what games are supposed to be.
Also, battle passes and season passes and everything that horse armor spawned can all go in the trash when there is another video game collapse.
Comparing Octopath Traveller to FF9 isn’t really fair. One was an entry on Squares premiere series with tons of money behind it, the other is a side project made by a side team with far less resources. Starfield is a big install as it’s using far higher quality textures than previous Bethesda games, probably higher quality audio too.
EA has been doing this for years. Except they were nearly infinitesimally nicer about it and gave you X installs per key, with the caveat that you had to burn hours on their support line to get it reset.
I think the real problem is how shady it seems. Like has everyone forgotten the concept of “grandfather in”? People will make new games in unity if they factor in the cost. I think people are understanding if they have the priory knowledge that unity needs to maybe start charging something. But sounds like they are asking for after these businesses already have created budgets. It sounds like it could be a bit of extortion depending on what the original agreement was. " Extortion might involve … damage to a companies financial well being."
This is the most crazy shit news. I was unsure to try Unity but now I’m totally sure. Glad to have dodge a bullet of this evil company. I will not login in any hub and I will not to be forced online to use your stupid software.
Yeah, I forgot to mention in my original post that ECS was extensively described and already in use by many private commercial engines (like Overwatch) at the time when the patent came out. Absolutely ridiculous patent that shows why the whole system is broken.
I am willing to go through the trouble because it gives the developer more money. Especially if the game is developed with Unreal Engine. Many player don’t give a fuck and don’t know that any game developed with Unreal engine Epic gets some money even if you buy on steam. For anyone that has this “Fuck Epic” mentality and are willing to go to extend to boycott or not buying games from their “favorite” developer, sorry, you also don’t give a fuck about said developer nor their games. You can stand on principle and against that platform exclusivity behavior and I hope you stick to your principle across platforms as well. As in, you never buy games that don’t do simultaneous release due to an exclusivity deal. (Aka, you can’t buy SpiderMan or God of War on PC cause they aren’t released on Xbox platform.)
The reason for my decision is very simple, if your game is developed with UE:
steam takes 30% cut and Unreal Engine has that 5% royalty past liftetime and then quarterly revenue threshold. Once you game go beyond that threshold, all sales on steam you only see 65% back. (steam have special per project deal if your sales volume exceed certain number, and I guess good luck negotiate with them without some big publisher on your back. steam only back down on this cause Epic’s exclusive deals. )
Epic takes 12% cut and waive Unreal Engine royalty, in same case like above, you see “all sales”(before and after UE revenue threshold) gives you 88% back.
Even if you wrote your own engine, Steam vs EGS is 18% revenue difference from the get go, if ANY gamer claim that they loved the games developer, and willing to support them(if they don’t have their own store front), buying on EGS supports them 18% more. I will take the bad store interface anytime, even if it means I have to download update and patch myself.(which we all did before steam is a thing.)
Say, what happen if a game is released by publisher that have their own launcher. How do you “support” developer more.
If they are not using Unreal engine, buy on the publisher launcher.
If they are using Unreal Engine, during launch window buy on the publisher launcher, dev have to pay the 5% royalty.
If they are using Unreal Engine, not direct subsidiary, post launch window( 6 month+ after launch) buy on EGS if you know their revenue split agreement with the publisher. (this is highly NDA stuff so you can only “guess” or if you have some industry hush hush info.) If you are not certain, still buy on the publisher launcher.
There are a couple types of revenue split with publisher if you are not direct subsidiary, this highly depends on the contract negotiated and for independent studios that wish to remain independent and still wants to get publisher money for the push to ship a game it might be one of the following variation.(note this excludes some shady publisher stuff you see on internet from smaller ones.)
If publisher is confident, they will take higher split all the way until all cost is recovered, dev will get enough money to maintain their operation with sale flux. If your sell are better than expected, win/win. (they usually have first say to sequel/derived works to decide if they want to remain the publisher for that IP.)
Another type is publisher takes all the sales until the cost is recovered, but they have to sustain your core operation during this period(this is also cost). After that it’s the split agreed upon.
The above are the “templates”, all details are in fine print. So as you can see, the decision to buy after lunch window highly depends on the “split” method and how much the publisher charge the dev for their store front. Before EGS, the publisher can simply charge the developers 30% cause everyone else(Steam/Google/Apple) is doing the same. It is rare but there are some devs once they are out of their contract they become their own publisher on steam/egs. Or, they are their own publisher on non-exclusive platform. example would be say a game is PlayStation exclusive for 6m/1y, allowed simultaneous release on PC, more than likely the publisher on PC is the dev themselves. (sony allows that type of deals)
So why don’t publisher just work with Steam and not Epic or why do the publisher/developer take the Epic exclusive deals even though they know the “angry fuck epic exclusive” gamer will be all over them on [insert social media platform]?
BECAUSE YOU DON’T HAVE THE NUMBERS, YOU ARE PART OF THE NUMBERS.
Everything is market statistics, they are in the business to make money, for every party involved. They are not there to make you and only you happy. They want to make enough in sales to cover their bills, pay the stock holders, make some banks if they are lucky and there are decision making with different risk factors. They make the best decision to keep going and not flopping and lose their hard work up for the chopping block sales. The internet noise are just noise on the statistics.
The board knew who he was and his history before they hired him. They still hired him. They wanted and supported this but it blew up and he’s the fall guy for this change.
Until the board changes, I don’t think I care much for Unity at all.
Don’t get me wrong, he’s a dick, but I cannot imagine he’s the only one.
A private company still has owners and their representatives, regardless of whether or not the company has a formal board. Things are just more formalized and documented in public companies.
In fact, CEOs tend to have more power in public companies than in private ones, since public companies have a higher share of passive shareholders and more divided shareholders.
I strongly agree that it seems like in his comments after the interview last year (the fing idiots comment) that he was planning to leave soon the whole time and volunteered to be the fall guy in exchange for a golden parachute. It’s a win for all parties involved, because unity gets their PR scapegoat and he was likely going to get a nice financial package on the way out the door anyway.
I don’t care much what the new direction is anyway. I’m using unreal for my games but I admit even with the new pricing structure, I’d probably pay a lot less under Unity’s install fee thing, which caps out at 4% rev share, assuming one of my games ever even got enough sales to hit a million dollar threshold as a solo developer. The issue for me was the magical telemetry spyware that’s apparently going to be in every new build now. Its to the point I’m reconsidering if I’ll buy unity games ever again, or even install any of the ones I have on steam if they decide to update the build.
(That last part hurts my soul deep because Cities Skylines 2 is literally about to release. 🥲)
The problem with CEOs like Riccitiello is he is so focused on making money that he doesn’t understand how to build a business. He is looking for existing processes to monetize instead of finding new ways to generate revenue. He’s unimaginative and it’s killing any business he runs. The people want to buy a product, not buy into a scheme.
And the telling thing is that the share holders are keeping him in post. They either don’t have a long term interest in the business, or support him, and even if he goes, the rot is still there. The larger shareholders should be seriously reflecting on how is on the board and applying significant pressure to change that if they care about the long term of the company.
Hopefully every developer who has the means to still drops Unity like a bad habit. They’ve tipped their hand and shown what they’re willing to do, which is ‘as much as we can possibly get away with’. It’s only a matter of time until they find a new, more abusive way to do this. I think at this point, any developer who chooses to use Unity when other options are equally viable for their project is, to use Unity’s CEO’s own words, “a fucking idiot”.
Users will need to be signed into the Hub with their Unity ID and connect to the internet to use Unity. If the internet connection is lost, users can continue using Unity for up to 3 days while offline.
Always online tools and (single player) games are horrible and punish people who have no or limited internet connection. Speaking from experience, not everyone has a wired 1gbps fibre connection.
Epic taking a “we’ll accept first and consider the consequences later” isn’t the right move, in my opinion. Sure, the points they make, that “not all AI content is infringing or bad” is true, but the vast majority of AI being used in games is cheap and quick art assets for shovelware titles. Steam already has a considerable amount of shitty titles, allowing stuff made with AI would only make it even worse.
I think the major pushback against AI in games is exactly that, they just scream “cheap money grab” from a zero-skill nobody
Honestly, Epic gets 5% of the profits of a lot of games. Most major studios are switching to Unreal. So that’s likely going to be their money maker for years to come. A storefront is their bonus cash. A lot of people seem to be getting games on EGS.
@ICastFist
I would argue that "zero-skill" games can have charm if they're still fun or creative. Perhaps I'm a bit biased though as a beginner gamedev who doesn't have much skill outside of programming though.
gamedev
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.