[rich_sasha]

This kind of thing keeps happening with [semi] open, [semi] free products backed by a commercial company. That doesn't make it good, but I wonder if the business model just doesn't quite work.

It's fine early on, especially if you have a funding backer (large company, generous VC etc). But eventually you need to produce revenue.

Worse still, once you realize this, you are perversely encouraged to lock in as many people into the "free" platform before pulling the rug. Even if that's not your initial plan.

I sincerely feel for all the indie gamedevs, this must be terrifying, I'm only commenting on the broader problem.

[_aavaa_]

Unity may be free, but it is by not "open" by any stretch of the imagination

[rich_sasha]

Yeah, I miswrote. I meant permissive and (formerly) "friendly" pricing.

[lawlessone]

I guess it's a freemium sdk.

[RetroTechie]

> But eventually you need to produce revenue.

Often it might be a case of:

"We're doing X revenue right now. Let's do whatever it takes to (try and) increase that revenue".

Versus:

"We're doing X revenue right now. Let's use that revenue to do the best we can & improve product. Hopefully bringing in more customers, so we'll have more resources to improve product or develop new ones".

The 1st is profit focussed, leading to enshittification.

The 2nd is customer-focussed, leading to innovation & better products.

Unity clearly chose to chase profits above customer satisfaction.

[rich_sasha]

I mean... it is a business. The step they take is shitty and very possibly long term damaging to their business, but I can't blame them for prioritizing profit.

[gcr]

what do you mean by calling unity semi-open?

Nothing about Unity has been “open” since its founding

[whstl]

I know it still doesn't mean it is "open", but I wonder if GP means that it "has a rich ecosystem anyone can participate", aka "lock-in".