[endisneigh]

It’s interesting how some complain companies don’t listen to them, and others say that it doesn’t matter if changes are made after (rightful) complaints.

I have absolutely no stake in this and I’m sure these aren’t the same people, but it is interesting.

From reading the original proposal and this new one, they should’ve gone first with this one. I’m sure unity developers will hesitatingly continue their work.

[Macha]

"Unity decides to change the deal in a way that costs us money for our already developed game" was not something on anyone's threat model. Until last year, Unity's TOS even included provisions that would have unambiguously prevented such a move. Maybe some considered "Unity changes the deal in the future and we need to learn a new engine for project n+1 and get stuck on an old version of Unity on our current project" as a threat. But now that Unity has put the first one in people's minds, Unity has to put people at ease about that to get to square one, not just cancel the current attempt.

[njovin]

> It’s interesting how some complain companies don’t listen to them, and others say that it doesn’t matter if changes are made after (rightful) complaints

In this case I think those can (rightfully and reasonably) be the same people. If a company rolls out a pricing/licensing change that is so detrimental to the developers that it seems like no reasonable developer would have thought it was a good idea, then it looks like the company rolled it out either without talking to their developers or without taking their feedback into account, both of which are equally bad.

In cases like this where the business acted so egregiously, the damage is done and trust might not be restorable long-term without C-level heads rolling.

[PaulKeeble]

If they had gone with this one to begin with they would have lost some customers but no where near as many. What they did makes them clearly an unstable business partner that is willing to break the law to rip you off. Walking it back changes the deal but it doesn't change the type of business they are.

[cco]

> It’s interesting how some complain companies don’t listen to them, and others say that it doesn’t matter if changes are made after (rightful) complaints.

That's because many folks recognize that the fundamental problem is not the proposal, it is the mechanism by which that proposal was crafted, refined, and finally approved that is rotten.

Walking back the proposal is fine in the near term, but without drastic change to the fundamentals of the company and its leadership, you'll just end up in the same situation in the future, it is just a matter of when.

[squeaky-clean]

Just because they listened once when their profits were seriously on the line, doesn't mean they listen generally.

If you file for divorce, and in reaction they buy you flowers and other gifts, it doesn't mean they're suddenly fixed and have always been a good partner.

It's also very likely they got some legal letters from Pokémon Go or other similarly large Unity based games, and they still don't care about what the online community has to say.