Im looking forward to what happens next, do they hardcode it so the runtime doesnt work if it doesnt receive a response from home, effectively making it “must be connected to internet” or will they allow us pihole users to bypass the telemetry.
Honestly I don’t see most of the indie companies keep working with Unity unless they have no choice. Even if they roll it back, who’s to say that they won’t do that again next year?
The fact that they count you retroactively for eligibility means they want to try and rake as much money as possible.
This is a far more nuanced situation, but even in what you’re describing the service is then ceased, you don’t get to continue using the service on the previous terms.
I’ve seen a claim that the old terms of service explicitly stated that you could do so so long as you didn’t update to the newer version. Which is probably fine for most developers who are already deep into a Unity project. (Though as Unity has now taken down their GitHub page with those terms on it, I haven’t yet seen anyone link to an easy to verify and read copy for people to see if that’s true or not.
Apparently they snuck a clause into an update to the ToS at some point, after years of saying they’d never do such a thing. So people agreed to a loophole without realizing. The legality of such a thing is highly questionable, hence the rumblings of potential lawsuits are already brewing.
If you want to change the terms of contract then you have to contact every affected individual or company and make it explicitly clear what terms of contract are being changed and then get explicit approval that these changes can go ahead. Obviously you do otherwise we live in a world of anarchy and business couldn’t possibly happen.
When companies want to renegotiate tiny intricate details of contracts it often takes months because of these requirements, even when both parties are already in verbal agreement.
They can’t just announce they are changing the contract and then provide less than 2 months worth of warning and say you don’t get a choice this is the new contract now and forever and also in the past. They have to get explicit approval of this change, and obviously no one’s going to give them it.
Pretty standard really. You don’t want contributions to the codebase come under questionable copyright concerns, or the original creator to revoke the code 4 years later causing huge headaches potentially.
You typically have to sign these types of CLA’s whenever you need to contribute to any serious project. I’ve had to do it for Google and Microsoft recently, and I’ve done it for various other open source projects as well.
Still that shouldn’t concern users/gamedevs as they don’t contribute to the engine code typically. Only if they want to upstream changes back into the engine publicly they would need to sign it ofcourse
Also, speaking of alternatives, people should check out O3DE. It’s based on Amazon Lumberyard, which itself it based on CryEngine, but it’s FOSS and managed by the Linux Foundation.
Interestingly enough, Epic Games is a premier member, along with many other companies.
From their FAQ, looks like Unity doesn’t have any real way of dealing with pirated or fake installs. Their FAQ says you have to work with them when that happens so they can correct your bill. It doesn’t say Unity will automatically filter those installs out.
Officially no, but the wording on the FAQ says it’s the developer’s job to take it up with them to resolve it. So it’s clear they don’t have any safeguard and only after you’re affected you can talk to them lmfao.
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.
Same thing goes for “install-bombing”:
We are not going to charge a fee for fraudulent installs or “install bombing.” We will work directly with you on cases where fraud or botnets are suspected of malicious intent.
So not only are the fees outrageous, but now devs are responsible for making sure this whole system isn’t being abused. It’s not gonna be long until people figure out how the install count is updated, and will proceed to weaponize it lmfao.
and don’t forget that this is “we’ll work with you” - i.e. you’d better build your own analytics into your game to prove your case otherwise unity can go “well assume 10% are bad installs - now pay for 90%”
The only way I see Unity being saved is by developers buying it out, only to render it Open-Source. And for the purpose of an open-source 3D game engine, you’ve got Godot.
I know Valve has a good reputation but I really don’t want another company owning both a major storefront and a major game engine. It’s not great to have Epic in that situation, but at least they provide competition to Steam.
If Unity fails hopefully that means another game engine company can grow and take their place and keep market competition strong.
Source 2 is ancient and doesn’t even come close to modern Unity. Unity added a lot of modern stuff in the last few years (obviously) like physically-based rendering, which make a world of a difference in games.
I’m pretty sure valve has stated source 2 will be publicly available in the future just like source 1 is. They haven’t ever really betrayed or misled me in the 10+ years I’ve been on steam so I’m going to believe Valve.
Valve’s really slow to announce anything and given that there’s only I dunno, three games right now using Source 2, they’ve probably forgotten about it. Furthermore, looking at how S&box is shaping up, they could always just buy Facepunch and make it the ‘licensable’ option because it looks more feature complete. I wouldn’t be surprised if S&box shakes out to be the Source 2 you can use at home. Source 2’s featureset is more or less dictated by what Valve wants to build, which makes it a poor choice unless you wanna make a VR FPS game or a Moba.
No, they’d have to start from scratch. They’re entirely different engines and everything is very specific to the engine, down to the tooling and languages used.
Oh my…what a waste of time, money, old games will be removed I imagine, knowledge. All to gain what? Developers are already moving away from Unity. It’s one company after another going to hell and causing damage.
I’m working on a game with Unity and the software design has been done in a way that keeps most the game itself as data, and uses the Unity stuff mainly as something to display multiple views on the state of the data (a 3D view of the game space, multiple UI elements diving into slices of the data an so on) - basically a Model-View-Controller Architecture, so moving from Unity to something else doesn’t require a rewrite (in fact such structure makes it possible, for example, to with some ease change the game’s visuals from 3D to 2D), though it would still be quite a lot of work.
However my game is survival-management in space (within one or more generated star-systems, so it was simplified down to a 2D plane) which doesn’t relly on Unity things like terrain, navigation meshes or even colliders to constrain the movement of objects in the game, so calculating “what happens next” (say, the movement of planets or the guidance of ships going from planet to planet) gets decided using Maths at the data level without going through the Unity layer, and Unity is mainly the means to get user input comes and the layer that gets updated with the state of the data at the end of each cycle (i.e. game objects get moved around) which it the uses for rendering.
Other games which are not reliant on Unity to do the heavy lifting for objects interactiong with other objects on a 3D space, such as 2D platformers, can probably use a similar architecture, but for example something like Valheim or Planet Crafter (were the player controls a humanoid avatar on a 3D world which is mainly terrain) is probably much harder to move out from Unity,
Not to mention I’m sure they use third party tools to help with things. Bigger games like Genshin Impact for example, are on an older version of Unity where they heavily modified the engine to suit their needs. That would take a tremendous amount of work to move, and they’d have to redesign their entire graphics pipeline. Which also Godot has gotten better, but is still far behind the others in terms of high end graphics. That’s why it’s usually seen as the go to for indies, and not so much high end games. Also they don’t plan on making anything like DOTS, but I’m not sure how relevant that actually is.
Third-party tools might or not be a problem depending on whether those tools also support other frameworks or there being equivalent tools for other frameworks.
Again, it depends how tightly coupled the game is to the framework (directly or via 3rd party tools), but yeah, the more work you’ve sunk into the Unity-specific side of things and the more tightly coupled your game is to it (i.e. doing everything via Unity rather than, as I did, make the game run as a data model which then dictates how the visual layer - which is where Unity mainly is - is updated) the harder it will be to move.
Mind you, the Unity guys really pushed for devs to go via it for everything (it’s software design and architecture aren’t exactly great) in a sort of spaghetti design, so I expect a lot of indie devs using Unity who don’t have quiet as much experience and/or it’s not really broad, will get burned due to falling into that specific trap.
The Godot tools are significantly behind Unity. Unity has a much bigger community and a built in store for their addons. Godot has neither, and has been around for less time. Godot doesn’t even have a built in terrain tool for example, and the most advanced plug-in for it is still pretty basic.
I don’t think one can say “it will be a problem” because there are so many different ways to do a game (do you really think “terrain tools” matter in something like Terraria???!), all one can say is that “it might be a problem”, which is what I’m saying, and judging from my experience with it it will be more of a problem for people doing 3D worlds with terrain, pathing and so on than for people doing 2D or, like me using 3D as a sort of moving gallery to show in a nice way what would otherwise be pretty bland.
Whilst I’m currently on vacations, next week I’ll have to start evaluating both Godot and Unreal for my project - which, as I said, whilst it does show things in a 3D view, is architectured so that the game essentially runs in data space with user-input coming from the framework (and it’s pretty easy to change that because it’s centralized) and on the other side the framework rendering visual views of the data.
My plans to upgrate to the latest Unity are now shelved and I’ve already planned how I’ll remove the last pieces of Unity influence (basically Vector2) from my data layer and make sure it’s totally separate.
Someone has pulled off porting an Unreal map over to Unity before, but a lot of the maps lighting and other effects were completely lost. Look up Stanley parable rocket league. It’s definitely possible to port Unity maps to other engines and vice versa, but it would take a lot of work and a lot of rebuilding everything from scratch
So Davey Wreden, writer and creator of the stanley parable, has a brother who is a youtuber, DougDoug. When ultra deluxe dropped Davey joined his brother playing through the game again. Anyway, at one point in the video he mentioned that in order to port over the rocket league map they needed to hire an outside consultant to port it.
Not really. Assets are more or less portable with some effort, but not the logic. There are tools to help you port your code but it more or less requires a complete re-write.
though to be fair, a big part of writing the logic is figuring out the logic, designing the system and interactions etc. so while it is a big task, its much smaller than starting over from scratch
Not necessarily since different toolsets have different logic operators and transformers and the logic isn’t always 1-1. I’ve moved enough code from even the same language but different implementations, nothing to say of entirely different system and languages.
Speedruns show how much of a bodge jobs a lot of games are and how much they could be broken.
Something else to think about is that it will potentially make it so there are more patches required, and those patches may take more time to cycle to production. Companies that had deadlines and a work schedule planned are now thrown into disarray.
Fair enough, but it’s still a massive time and resource sink. You also can’t really implement new features during the re-write lest project creep gets out of control, and even after the rewrite the product will be less stable than the original for quite a while until it’s had sufficient time to mature.
It might be worth the investment to ditch proprietary software from a predatory company and jump to open source though, which can’t really pull shit like this in its future.
You can port over a lot of C# code into Godot, but there are things that are engine specific. However, they are similar enough that you can just work on refactoring without sgarting from scratch.
I’ve ported a few of my projects from Unity and it’s not impossible, it’s just a lot of copy and pasting and making a few changes
While it would potentially be easier to learn all the not-programming stuff that’s different whilst sticking with a programming language you’re familiar with, I would recommend also having a play with GDScript too. It’s well documented and pretty easy to get started with (syntactically it’s basically Python.)
Migrating really large software is incredibly time consuming and difficult. My background is with backend servers, not games, but some large framework migrations we’ve done were a multi year effort and IMO they weren’t nearly as big or fundamental as game engines can be (though we did have to maintain near perfect uptime, which isn’t a concern for an unreleased game).
That does seem to be their excuse. It crosses a line when they make a call for action that benefits them monetarily and “it’s just a prank, bro” is just deflection for not great behavior, imo.
Nah dude, don’t be so eager to jump on people’s throats like this. They were being sarcastic about a difficult situation that they and many other indie developers might have to deal with, that in January 1st they might be sent a massive bill over a deal that they never agreed with.
If your conclusion here is Cult of the Lamb/Massive Monster/Devolver is being greedy rather than Unity, you are missing the point. Unity is the one actually making it so that the most sensible decision for many smaller developers barely making ends meet will be to delist before January 1st.
Sometimes people become so cynical that they go back around at losing perspective by always assuming the worst out of everything and everyone, that’s not great.
I think you are misunderstanding what I’m saying. I do believe they were just joking around and being sarcastic, I don’t think they were intentionally trying to fleece people for money. But when you’re running a studio and you make a call for action saying “we’re going to pull the game so buy it now!” and just expect people to somehow know you’re kidding, well, that isn’t very responsible or professional. That’s my point. I’m not sure why you’re defending them, here. It’s not the end of the World or anything, but it’s not great behavior, either.
Here we go back around to where I started with. They always been silly with their marketing. They also said they would sacrifice their players and they both have beef and flirted with Angry Birds. Nobody would take that seriously.
A quirky indie studio going “welp, better pack up and leave next year” at the Unity situation just seems par for the course. No reason to jump the gun unless they confirm that later.
I’m defending them because I think you are making too much of an issue out of it.
1.5 years of learning unity gone down the shitter. here I come, godot
even if they backtrack, trust is ruined at this point. this only makes sense if you’re trying to destroy the company intentionally and short your stock on the way out. what the fuck
It was probably part of his contract. It wasn’t $40 when he sold it. As probably allowed by his contract, he sold it back to the company and bought it back for pennies. It’s just compensation not some conspiracy on his individual part.
What you said doesn’t make any sense. Either it wasn’t $40 a share when he sold it like you said in this comment or it was $40 a share like you said in the previous comment.
It makes sense if the company had agreed to buy the shares off of him at market rates and then sell him stock back at a significant discount. Doing this would allow him to claim the money gained as capital gains rather than employment income, and it wouldn't count as insider trading if it was an arrangement made and timelines settled upon before the bullshit was planned.
It could be something like having his contract say that the company will buy back X shares when the share price hits $Y in value, for instance.
I guarantee you his contract looks like something like this, “If you meet X performance metric, the company will buy N amount of shares (maximum 2000) back at the maximum/average stock price within Y days and sell you back the amount of shares sold (maximum 2000) for Z dollars.”
When you sell your time and labour for a living, you tend to not have any idea about how people who own property for a living get paid. And the ownership class does a pretty good job at misinforming the working class about those details, since it benefits them to be seen as just doing the same things at a different scale. Insights into the actual process of their compensation will look like some sort of conspiratorial scheme because... Well, because it is. It's just not the one people will tend to tie it to. And it's not an illegal one.
They want us to believe they're playing baseball in the major leagues while we're on the company softball team, instead of highlighting that they're actually playing poker with a stacked deck against a casino they own.
1.5 years of learning unity gone down the shitter.
And this is the real damage to their business here. They clearly lost sight of their business model: Create an army of developers who know their product very well, so that it's on a short list of products studios are all but forced to consider.
A wave of developers who know soemthing other than Unity or Unreal has the potential to turn the games development ecosystem totally on its head. They didn't shoot themselves on the foot, they possibly shot themselves in the femoral artery.
Concept, yes. The actual infrastructure, tool chains, and processes are usually not. The IDE is different, the language is different, the keyboard shortcuts are different.
The only non-pain point are probably assets. But the code is not really transferable.
Most of the stuff needs to be completely rewritten.
Yes, I understand! I’m talking from the perspective of someone that learned those skills.
That learned about tool chains, about the required infrastructure, the processes, IDE configuration, etc.
I’m not saying the change is painless. I’m saying for each of those, there’s an equivalent in any other game making tool. The foundations help to learn the new ones faster. And the new ones takes you generalised knowledge further. Which only contributes to your professionals growth.
At the end of the day, every technology will be replaced. Being able to transfer skills between different scenarios is a valuable skill itself. :)
Add comment