BrowseMan,

From what I understood it was unsubtle trolling from the devs.

Computerchairgeneral,

It would be a shame if they were forced to follow through with this threat. Cult of the Lamb is a great game. I'd be curious to know if this changes their plans for their next big content update, which they'd tentatively moved to late 2023 back in August.

Sethayy,

ahemhem piracy is preservation ahem

iforgotmyinstance,

Maybe they can rebuild it somewhere else in the meantime and re-release it on the 1st just to leave Unity behind altogether.

Ferk, (edited )
Ferk avatar

I expect the cost to rebuild it would be high enough that it instead would make more sense to make it more of a remaster or sequel if they have to ask people to buy it again.

CookieJarObserver,
@CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works avatar

Based. Hope there will be someone making a code translator for Unity code to a open source code

AnAngryAlpaca,

You can do this sort of thing with chatGPT in theory. As long as you translate function by function it is not bad, however different languages will differ in details, which will cause some issues at the end.

MentalEdge,
@MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz avatar

Oh dear. The only option left will be to pirate it… And in the new model, the dev might have to pay unity even for pirated installs.

Sethayy,

“Will games made with Unity phone-home to track installs?

We will refine how we collect install data over time with a goal of accurately understanding the number of times the Unity runtime is distributed. Any install data will be collected in accordance with our Privacy Policy and applicable privacy laws.”

Sounds like they’re gonna add tracking data to the game, so probably pirated installs won’t count

conciselyverbose,

“Will games made with Unity phone-home to track installs?

We will refine how we collect install data over time with a goal of accurately understanding the number of times the Unity runtime is distributed. Any install data will be collected in accordance with our Privacy Policy and applicable privacy laws.” They already do, and fuck you for asking.

What a joke of a response.

ShaunaTheDead,
ShaunaTheDead avatar

For real? That's crazy!

metaStatic,

Try to charge me retroactively for anything and see how fast I lawyer up.

Unaware7013,

Right? How the fuck is it legal to decide that your customers retroactively owe you money just because you unilaterally said so?

Gordon_Freeman, (edited )
Gordon_Freeman avatar

your customers retroactively owe you money just because you unilaterally said so?

John Riccitiello is Unity's CEO, you may remember him from being EA's CEO or for being the guy who said the devs who don't monetize (you know adding microtransactions, loot boxes and all that greedy stuff) their videogames are "fucking idiots". I think that explains all

HolyDuckTurtle,
HolyDuckTurtle avatar

One of the really fun details about this fiasco is a few years back, after they had made a big PR fuck up like this, Unity stated they would make their Terms of Service version-bound. If you had Unity 2019 and continued to use it forever, you would only have to abide by the ToS for that version. Put simply, they could not retroactively apply new changes to you.

...Guess which segment got quietly removed last year!

Itty53,
Itty53 avatar

Put simply, they could not retroactively apply new changes to you.

Sounds like they could though?

Jokes aside, this is another in a recent string of "let's pretend our ToS are legally binding documents as fool-proof as the law" actions by major companies because ... well, who's stopping them?

Unaware7013,

That's the part I don't get. If I bought it in 2020 or whenever that was in the license, how can they decide to violate the license on the software you bought?

It's one thing of you go into the agreement knowing about the fees, but enforcing them retroactively against your own license agreement sounds like you're asking for a lawsuit.

conciselyverbose,

I would think their public statements would significantly hurt the ability to do this, even if developers "agreed" to the terms without that clause.

I straight up don't think they could legally do it either way. But if they made public statements specifically addressing this particular thing, it has to significantly weaken their case.

Wirrvogel,
@Wirrvogel@feddit.de avatar

retroactively

That’s the biggest issue I see too. After this you can not trust them if you have a business. I mean Darth Vader can “alter the deal” but I don’t think Unity can afford to do that and Indy developers can’t afford to put their lifelihood on “trust” alone.

Rami Ismail:

“Unity should not be able to retroactively change the terms and conditions on products or sales you’ve already made,” he wrote in a thread, emphasising in another reply that although the fee does not come into effect until 2024, it would still affect games released in recent years.

“Them making this move says they’re willing to, and that should be terrifying.”

He added: "Unity should not charge developers or their partners (including publishers or distributors) for things that earn no revenue and/or are outside of their control. ‘Installs’ cannot be controlled or limited, and means licensing a copy, sale or not, creates a perpetual financial risk.

“It comes down to trust. I don’t think practically many devs will be bankrupted by this, but any system that is sprung on developers that allows them to be financially harmed in any way by their success should not be tolerated by any business looking to build a sustainable future.”

gamesindustry.biz/unity-clarifies-new-fee-plans-a…

Ferk, (edited )
Ferk avatar

As far as I understand (someone correct me if I'm wrong) games that are free / non-commercial and have zero revenue are not affected at all by this, they still don't have to pay anything regardless of the number of installs.

If the game is no longer being sold (and thus no longer commercial / having revenue), then I expect that even under those new rules Unity would also not charge the dev.

TwilightVulpine,

Over a finished unavailable product and unauthorized distribution? They might as well sue Unity back for trying to profit over piracy of their works.

Pamasich, (edited )
Pamasich avatar

Only monetized games have to pay. If they stop selling the game, they shouldn't be affected anymore.

Also

Does the Unity Runtime Fee apply to pirated copies of games?
We are happy to work with any developer who has been the victim of piracy so that they are not unfairly hurt by unwanted installs.
(source)

wave_walnut,
wave_walnut avatar

"trust me bro"

Wirrvogel,
@Wirrvogel@feddit.de avatar
jeeva,

Thanks, I hate

  • Cult of the Lamb 2023 (Deprecated)
  • Cult of the Lamb 2024
  • Cult of the Lamb 2025 (Coming Soon)

:)

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • gaming
  • everett
  • magazineikmin
  • osvaldo12
  • tester
  • slotface
  • khanakhh
  • Youngstown
  • kavyap
  • tacticalgear
  • GTA5RPClips
  • DreamBathrooms
  • rhentai
  • ethstaker
  • rosin
  • relationshipadvice
  • thenastyranch
  • lostlight
  • Durango
  • InstantRegret
  • modclub
  • mdbf
  • cubers
  • cisconetworking
  • HellsKitchen
  • Leos
  • normalnudes
  • bokunoheroacademia
  • sketchdaily
  • All magazines