[indymike]

There are a few things Unity needs to address (I'm about to go write a couple of games because I've spent a career writing boring business software) before I will consider using Unity:

* One of Unity's spokespersons actually said that Unity could add fees at any time, and customers could not do anything about it. Aside probably being illegal in most jurisdictions, this mentality shows a complete lack of integrity and an abundance of power-drunkenness. What is being done to ensure that you can actually do a contract with Unity and trust them to live up to their obligations? (spirit of the agreement, not letter of the agreement)

* What is going to be done to make sure that Unity's executive team does not make a future mistake like this?

Finally, we'll all have to wait. The tweet said "we heard you and we're going to do something different". Not exactly a decisive move.

[mjr00]

> One of Unity's spokespersons actually said that Unity could add fees at any time, and customers could not do anything about it. Aside probably being illegal in most jurisdictions, this mentality shows a complete lack of integrity and an abundance of power-drunkenness.

Part of me really wanted this to happen just to put it to the legal test. So many modern sales, especially digital, are actually an indefinite license rather than ownership. Imagine the fun possibilities of:

* iTunes/Amazon/Google/etc charging an additional "viewing fee" any time you listened or watched music, movies, or TV you previously paid for.

* Tesla charging a network access fee any time you start your car.

* Your smart TV getting a firmware upgrade that starts invoicing you for minutes watched. These charges can be offset by advertisement credits that you earn by shouting "McDonald's!" at your television.

I suspect with the death of ZIRP, Unity won't be the last company who tries to pull something like this.

[Guvante]

I have heard someone said the runtime wasn't covered by the agreement it was just technically free.

However Unity also said the terms came into effect as part of license renewal. Requiring a new fee structure as part of a renewal is bog standard.

The main thing people were pushing back on was it was promised that old titles could preserve the existing terms.

If anyone cut ties with Unity and Unity went after them anyway would have been what you mention.

[Semaphor]

At least in EU, what they did could be legal while your suggestions wouldn’t. Because there are different laws for B2C and B2B. B2C is far stricter.

[ClimaxGravely]

If you haven't already started a project then just don't use unity. There's a lot of really good stuff out there already that don't have such nebulous terms.

Feel free to send me a message and I can send you a list of alternatives. I don't consider myself much of an expert but for what it's worth I've been making games for almost 25 years.

[em-bee]

could you share that list right here please?

[MrDrMcCoy]

Here's a bunch, in no particular order:

https://godotengine.org/

https://o3de.org/

https://defold.com/

https://www.stride3d.net/

https://gdevelop.io/

https://armory3d.org/

https://torque3d.org/engine/

https://flaxengine.com/

https://pragma-engine.com/

https://wickedengine.net/

https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/

https://castle-engine.io/

https://solarus-games.org/

[ClimaxGravely]

Sorry I should have done that from the first place.

Here's a quick one as I'm on a movie break. I'll make a note to update this in the morning.

Haxe + Haxeflixel : pixel art games

Haxe + Heaps : More general 2d/3d framework with webgl target

Godot : I havent used it personally but I've had a myriad of co-workers tell me how good it is

Monogame/FNA : Open source multi-target C# framework that more or less fits the XNA api. I love this one. Might be really good for C# programmers.

[ClimaxGravely]

To add to this, some people I've worked with are talking about the stride engine (formally known as Xenko). MIT/C# engine

[40yearoldman]

Roblox?

[philipov]

They haven't heard anyone. They are just playing the "Overshoot then Back Off" negotiation playbook.

[Auracle]

I don’t think that’s true in this case. Usually that’s a “the structure is fine but the price increase is way too much” move.

This completely wrecked faith in Unity. They also took too long for this response. If it was their plan, it was an absolutely terrible one.

[loupol]

I think you and GP are right at the same time. The fee was probably knowingly overshot and then right after they offered to practically waive it to people who would be using their ad delivery services.

Getting people to use their ads was imo the main plan for them.

But they completely botched it by using a stupid fee structure and disregarding all the non-ad supported game developers who obviously won't get the waiver.

[panyam]

The idea that execs did not see this coming is well - ok may be I am too old think this was not planned.

[bensecure]

Apparently they previously had a clause in their terms allowing you to keep using any previous version of the terms subject to certain restrictions, and also maintained a github repo tracking all changes to their terms. The clause was removed and the repo taken down some months/years prior to this change. Supposedly they were added in the first place after some similar drama whose details I missed. The issue at this point isn't "what are they going to do to address this", it's "what are they going to do to make sure that whatever they do to address this doesn't get undone the next time they're feeling greedy". I really don't see them having a good answer to that, and I don't think anybody should accept whatever feeble answer they do come up with.

[berkle4455]

Just get started using anything but Unity.