[gmjosack]

This is basically everything policy wise they needed to do to quell the storm. This is honestly what should have just been announced originally. So much reputational damage just to arrive at a reasonable model weeks later.

I'm happy for all the Unity developers out there that are breathing a sigh of relief. Hopefully they can ship their ongoing projects but I'd be hesitant about a continued long term relationship with Unity after this.

This isn't the first Unity backlash and I'd be surprised if it's the last.

[misnome]

How does this help anything when they have already demonstrated their willingness to alter terms and retrospectively add fees or alter licensing conditions. They already walked back changes once before saying “Okay you can keep the terms you agreed on your version” and went back on that promise for this clusterfuck.

They burned the trust bridge and nothing they _ever_ do or can say will bring that trust back.

[ASalazarMX]

Compared to how other companies behave, Reddit for example, it's a good signal to their customers that they've come to their senses and reached a reasonable compromise. Also, a second mistake like this would be devastating, so hopefully Unity will handle changes better from now on.

[soerxpso]

I'm not so sure. Although the opportunity hasn't really even come up, one thing that Reddit has never done is make an agreement along the lines of, "You can use X version of this software under this license forever," in their own ToS, and then suddenly go back on it and declare that, actually, everyone they had that agreement with is now subject to arbitrary new rules. While Reddit has done some sketchy and user-hostile things in the past, it's an entirely different category.

It's a can of worms that cannot be closed. Even the apology-promises they're making right now are subject to random change, because they've made clear that they don't see their own ToS as binding for them. The article says, "We will make sure that you can stay on the terms applicable for the version of Unity editor you are using – as long as you keep using that version," and we're supposed to be reassured by that, but they've already said that exact thing before and shown that it was meaningless. What's to stop them from deciding next week that they changed their minds on their commitments again? They may have learned that they can't make such grand changes all at once without a boycott, but they could think that they can still roll out the same types of changes piecemeal over the next few years (and they might be right). What's to stop them from finding new ways to skirt around these commitments in the future (for example: adding some sort of planned obsolescence to future LTS versions to ensure that, even though you are technically allowed to use them under an old ToS, actually doing so would be completely untenable)?

Personally, I wouldn't trust anything this company says unless I have a legally binding contract with them, with clear damages defined if they break it (this may be the case for some larger studios, and that's fine for them). They can say anything they want in a PR release.

[tremon]

a second mistake like this would be devastating

According to the GP, this already was their second mistake like this. I'm not in game development and I'm not aware of the first, but maybe someone else can explain what/when their first "mistake" was.

[dpkonofa]

Ever since the mobile ad-first approach that's been a result of their buyout/merger/whatever it was, I think most Unity developers are bouncing. No one in their right might would leave their potential income in the hands of these sycophants.

[brucethemoose2]

> most Unity developers

Most non mobile Unity developers?

Unity has cultivated this reputation as a provider for artsy indies and small studios, and now some larger AAs, but I think they want to be a provider for mobile casinos. That's where all the money is, and they are less likely to balk at more fees.

[dpkonofa]

No, most Unity developers. Unity the company definitely wants into that market but, unfortunately for them, that's not the majority of their customers.

[drpossum]

Anyone breathing a sigh of relief on this isn't paying attention

[0cf8612b2e1e]

If you have a game that has been X months/years in development, porting to a different platform was not a realistic option. Those people are mega relieved they can get the current project out the door. Greenfield development should do a significant amount of consideration before starting a Unity project.

[drpossum]

Agreed and good point.

[gmjosack]

oh it's a very temporary sigh. finish up what's in the pipeline and get the hell out of there.

[_v7gu]

Just gotta pray they don't alter the deal any further, or use another option.

[hnarn]

> I'm happy for all the Unity developers out there that are breathing a sigh of relief.

That’s not really how trust works. If I was a Unity developer, I’d still be migrating, just not in total panic mode.