The Unity Games That Could be Impacted Most by Controversial Fees, From Silksong to Cult of the Lamb - IGN

shish_mish@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.world – 689 points –
The Unity Games That Could be Impacted Most by Controversial Fees, From Silksong to Cult of the Lamb - IGN
ign.com
203

You are viewing a single comment

JFC, I just learned that they are retroactively applying this new rule. This means that games that are out already or have been on sale for multiple years will have to pay the runtime fee too. Insane. They can bankrupt a studio before they even release their next game.

I still can't believe that retroactive fees like that are legal.

They aren’t and likely won’t hold up in court.

Gotta pay the lawyers to go to court though.

Hope enough teams can band together and file jointly, combined with decent fundraising and fair lawyers.

Fuck these Unity execs and their ilk. I guess they need more motivation to run a business properly, and not be rampaging sociopaths and enshittification experts. Perhaps some lawyers and lawmakers can offer them some humiliation and fear of personally feeling the consequences of their actions.

Because they’re not charging for previous installs, not new ones, and they operate technically on a free “subscription” model it’s going to be hard to challenge legally

I don't think they can enforce that, right? I assume that would be a change of the contract, which they can't just do willy nilly.

Yeah, I think that's straight up illegal and I would simply refuse to pay.

If they can retroactively change terms, why can't I, as a bonafide counterparty in that agreement? Maybe something like a 100% discount on runtime fees for days that end with 'y'.

Otherwise I could simply "retroactively apply" a 100% discount on my lease or new car purchase.

The correct answer and what all studios/devs should do: tell them to retroactively pound sand and ditch Unity for all future projects.

I don't think this is true? Their site https://unity.com/pricing-updates says "The fee applies to new installs beginning January 1, 2024"

New installs not new releases. So if you put out a game a few years back and suddenly a bunch of people start installing it on their new PCs, you'd get hit with this fee… assuming it is legally enforceable.

Hell, even if it isn't strictly legally enforceable, if you still need to deal with Unity in some way in future you could be forced into dealing with this fee in order to get Unity's cooperation.

Oh yeah good point. The word "retroactively" just gave me the idea that it would apply to old installs, because this whole thing is about installs.

Still, that is a major dick move.