4% royalty is fine, but they might as well remove the weird install-tracking bullshit at this point.
And stop unilaterally, retroactively modifying contracts.
If they thought they could get away with it once, they will try to get away with it again
I still don't understand how modifying contracts that already exist without written consent from the other party is even legal. I mean, isn't the whole point of a contract to enforce the conditions of an agreement? If one side can just change it willy-nilly, doesn't that kind of defeat the whole purpose of a contract in the first place?
Seriously, if someone more legal-minded could explain this, that would be fantastic.
I don't get it, either. Can't developers just abide by their old contract and not update to newer versions of Unity?
Unity themselves have committed to that option (if you don't like our new future TOS, keep the old version and don't update) in writing (that was in their deleted github repo). So it seems extremely likely that they would lose in court.
The key words in the above are 'in court'. If you're an indie unhappy with an x*$.20 charge, chances are a lawsuit will not improve your day.
Not sure about the first part (you'd think so), but as for the second part, a lot of clients are set by default to auto-update. Don't know about Unity, though.
Oh, there won’t be any install-tracking. They will „rely on users to self-report the data“. Sounds to me like they didn’t have any plan for how to reliably track installations in the first place because this is CEO bullshit bingo that was never cleared with the r&d department. So now „I’m sure the users won’t lie to us“ is their best option.
4% royalty is fine, but they might as well remove the weird install-tracking bullshit at this point.
And stop unilaterally, retroactively modifying contracts.
If they thought they could get away with it once, they will try to get away with it again
I still don't understand how modifying contracts that already exist without written consent from the other party is even legal. I mean, isn't the whole point of a contract to enforce the conditions of an agreement? If one side can just change it willy-nilly, doesn't that kind of defeat the whole purpose of a contract in the first place?
Seriously, if someone more legal-minded could explain this, that would be fantastic.
I don't get it, either. Can't developers just abide by their old contract and not update to newer versions of Unity?
Unity themselves have committed to that option (if you don't like our new future TOS, keep the old version and don't update) in writing (that was in their deleted github repo). So it seems extremely likely that they would lose in court.
The key words in the above are 'in court'. If you're an indie unhappy with an x*$.20 charge, chances are a lawsuit will not improve your day.
Not sure about the first part (you'd think so), but as for the second part, a lot of clients are set by default to auto-update. Don't know about Unity, though.
Oh, there won’t be any install-tracking. They will „rely on users to self-report the data“. Sounds to me like they didn’t have any plan for how to reliably track installations in the first place because this is CEO bullshit bingo that was never cleared with the r&d department. So now „I’m sure the users won’t lie to us“ is their best option.