Comment by umpalumpaaa

The old Terms of Service have the usual clause that says that the company can change the terms at any time. However, the terms do provide that if you don't update Unity then you can continue to use the old terms. Unity obviously doesn't point that out in the blog or FAQ.

> Unity may update these Unity Software Additional Terms at any time for any reason and without notice (the “Updated Terms”) and those Updated Terms will apply to the most recent current-year version of the Unity Software, provided that, if the Updated Terms adversely impact your rights, you may elect to continue to use any current-year versions of the Unity Software (e.g., 2018.x and 2018.y and any Long Term Supported (LTS) versions for that current-year release) according to the terms that applied just prior to the Updated Terms (the “Prior Terms”). The Updated Terms will then not apply to your use of those current-year versions unless and until you update to a subsequent year version of the Unity Software (e.g. from 2019.4 to 2020.1). If material modifications are made to these Terms, Unity will endeavor to notify you of the modification. If a modification is required to comply with applicable law, the modification will apply notwithstanding this section. Except as explicitly set forth in this paragraph, your use of any new version or release of the Unity Software will be subject to the Updated Terms applicable to that release or version. You understand that it is your responsibility to maintain complete records establishing your entitlement to Prior Terms.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220716084623/https://github.co...

Well, it depends on how you think of the license. Is it like you buy a license for a specific release or do you subscribe to a license to the software across all releases?

I don’t know. I can see how it would be ridiculous if Amazon said “oh, by the way, starting next year you have to pay a cent every time you finish any of the books you bought on your kindle”

But if Netflix went “starting next year, there’s a surcharge of 1 cent per episode you watch” nobody would go “surely it can only count for episodes released from next year!

Which raises an interesting question to me: what if a developer wants out of the Unity contract? Does that mean they have to somehow break games consumers already purchased so as not to be liable to install fees?

waves in the general direction of the housing market, politicians being "lobbied" (bought) by companies, rampant destruction of the environment by industry; but paper straws for us, the numerous tax havens and the lack of any reform from Panama papers, government "contractors" padding their purses with tax money (see projects like crossrail), privately owned utilities completely mismanaged and corrupt (see Thameswater)

We live in a dystopia lmao. Of course stuff like this is possible. Unity took one leap forward and pissed everyone off, they'll "fix" it by taking one or two steps back and then everyone will forget about it, just like we forget about everything else.

Maybe their argument was going to be the malicious interpretation that continued use of the engine represents consent to the updated terms. Thus maliciously expecting that anyone who doesn't agree should cease distribution and support of their game.

You can say whatever you want in a contract. If the other party thinks it is illegal they take you to court and the judge decides.

> Did Unity recently get acquired, new investors or new management?

EA's former CEO, John Riccitiello took over last year. He inaugurated himself with quite a few statements, one of which was discussed here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32097752

Unity IPO'ed in 2020, which isn't super recent, but is probably the reason behind these changes. IPO'ed means they gotta report some quarterly improvements, every quarter forever under the totally unsustainable growth model.

It's not fraud. They are not misrepresenting anything, or getting any money that doesn't belong to them.

If it's illegal, it will just be invalid. What means that people could just not pay them. There's no jail time coming out of this.

> Did Unity recently get acquired, new investors or new management?

Nope. They bought Weta tools and the investment haven't paid out and probably won't be soon if ever, now they are desperate for money.

The terms have been changed so that all future installs can incur a fee even on older games that used unity even if the haven't been updated recently.

I have only been generally following this but I don’t think this is quite accurate.

It seems more like, starting in 2024 when you get more downloads the fee would be applied.

I see people talking here about apps that have a huge user base and a very low price per purchase. I admit that segment didn’t pop into my mind initially. And I see the problem there. I also imagine the Unity execs may have missed that scenario too.

From reading all of their public communication, and with just a hint of principle of charity, I suspect they are trying to do this in the most fair minded and developer friendly manner possible.

You have to meet both volume and revenue minimums to even be subject to this. All free apps are safe. All non-profits are safe.

I think it is good Unity is receiving public feedback.

I am sad so many people are jumping to the conclusion this is a corrupt money grab.

That and/or they wanted to set up existing games. Something like 1 in 5 of top 50 iOS games, free-to-play and majority Asian(Chinese or Japanese), are making banks and on Unity.

Personally I’m wondering if Chinese gamedev industry would “buy Godot” or do something to that effect. Japanese publishers won’t be able to do that nor would be willing to pay, so I’m guessing they’ll migrate existing to UE or wind down Unity titles, just my speculations though.

Then just specify that new greenfield projects created after [date] won’t be licensed for previous versions of the engine, and that anyone with a project currently in development has until [date] to register their existing use.