That's why I'm really skeptical about relying on large game engines. Sure, they offer a lot for a relatively low cost, but being dependent on whatever the developers include in their terms of service—and especially on the things left unsaid or that could be decided in court—makes me hesitant to use one.
This isn't a problem if you use an open source engine that costs nothing and demands nothing. Cough Godot cough.
But even that Engine has its own drama / issues surrounding it with devs being locked out of access etc..
That drama was overblown, but it isn't stopping anyone from downloading the engine and using it.
Have you personally developed a game in Godot?
I have personally tried like the vast majority of people who use it and any other engine, including Unity, and have yet to succeed. Why?
what? nothing about the runtime fee drama was about somthing left unsaid or decided in court. it was a pre-announced change to the pricing that they abandoned after people complained.
It was a retroactive change. Suddenly people would have owed money for the runtime fee based on poorly defined per-install metrics that would have applied to demos, refunded copies, and subscription services like PlayStation Plus and Xbox Game Pass.
They only backpedaled after people complained, but a retroactive fee was an insane breach of trust.
The change would have applied the new fee structure even to games that were released before the change, which was absolutely scummy behaviour.
Huge fan of how Unity put the terms of service in a public GitHub repo. Do other organizations do this?
They actually did this when they had a public spat with Improbable and stealth-changed the ToS to forbid Improbable's use of Unity. When called out, Unity posted the ToS to GitHub as a promise of transparency going forward.
They deleted the repo it a few months before rolling out the runtime fee and published it again after being called out.
So it's great in concept, but we've already seen it completely ignored in practice.
At least it worked as a ToS canary. The repo goes down, and you know shenanigans are incoming.
Finally a legit use case for blockchain
Git is a blockchain
Because they couldn't just also move off of the blockchain?
Use legaleese to fight legaleese, just write in the ToS itself only the blockchain version is applicable. If they want to move off they at least have to update the blockchain version to remove the blockchain requirement for applicability.
They could of course just do that, so there is no benefit from it being in block chain compared with anywhere else.
The only advantage block chain provides is you don't have to trust anyone. Eg you don't have to trust GitHub to not delete or modify the repo themselves, but they weren't any part of the problem here.
[dead]
Why couldn't they do the same with Github, then? What problem does the blockchain actually solve that git (or just a website) wouldn't?
Not sure how much good that does. Git history is mutable.
It's also tamper-evident. Forks would detect the rewrite.
I have no idea how GitHub handles this. If I fork a repo through the GH GUI, the source repo rewrites history-is mine impacted? I assume GitHub does all sorts of tricks to minimize materializing data changes unless required. My “fork” could just be a pointer to the now mutated origin.
If this changes in the source repo and you try to reconcile from your unmodified base you'll be in for some bad surprises (things like "no common history" errors in the worst of cases). This is the reasons why you have to be careful with things that change branch pointers like squashing merges.
[dead]
i would like to see this work somehow. the whole modal click thru as part of bootup; install; or update is really old.
[flagged]
Recent and related:
Unity is cancelling the runtime fee for games customers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41521630 - Sept 2024 (76 comments)
Too little, too late. As the owner of a game company, I cannot trust Unity for my business, it's too much risk. A new CEO looking for a fat short term bonus could bankrupt me (as it there weren't enough risks as it is).
There isn't any real coming back from this other than waiting a decade for people to just forget about it. They went out of their way to do something that was highly unpopular, retroactively binding, with nebulous enforcement rules that unity decided. This was a massive unforced blunder.
They fired the CEO who made that decision. That seems like a pretty solid signal?
They have made the right moves after this, but it was their second massive breach of trust after the Improbable debacle.
The people invested in the Unity ecosystem will stay, but Unity drove a lot of people to Godot and Unreal. Unity now occupies a weird space where it's more expensive and harder to use than Godot, but not as powerful as Unreal.
As someone who has taught middle schoolers game development, Godot will absolutely replace Unity for students not only due to its price and licensing, but the ease of getting it deployed on a fleet of machines without even requiring a separate IDE.
It's more the breach of trust and how systemically rotten the entire company must have been to make a decision like that. I don't really buy that one guy could be the cause, and it also appears to be the CEO's job to hit the eject button when the company needs a scapegoat. The board of directors decided that the president of EA should run unity, and I think they're all still around.
It certainly gave Godot a huge boost in mindshare. If you are starting a greenfield project today and you are Godot compatible, are you really going to risk capacious Unity altering the deal again?
Too little too late. Game Devs I know are too aware of enshittification trends to be baited back into Unity for their next game. Unity has shown their hand and I think it's a slow death from here.
[flagged]