This is what I'd call a "corporate hearing test". If Unity doesn't hear this, they won't hear anything and should be abandoned en masse.View attachment 9653
And I think this particular response is a big one. Slay the Spire is the exact thing so many people want to happen for them. A small dev that makes an amazing game that's also a smash hit. Their comments about how their policy only effects a small percentage of people who use Unity (IOW, the very successful ones) are tone deaf because it's putting a tax on being successful and is much harsher for newly successful companies as opposed to established companies.
Now now there is no need for swearing. But man it sure is funny when you doView attachment 9653
And I think this particular response is a big one. Slay the Spire is the exact thing so many people want to happen for them. A small dev that makes an amazing game that's also a smash hit. Their comments about how their policy only effects a small percentage of people who use Unity (IOW, the very successful ones) are tone deaf because it's putting a tax on being successful and is much harsher for newly successful companies as opposed to established companies.
Hmm so does this mean that either we won't get a third Jedi game or that it might be shit? That is too bad, I really like these!
Wow, SW games under EA cannot count to 3..... This feels familiar
Holy f***ing shit though- they're just gonna delete a whole game from existence?! And a relatively new one at that.
Apparrently Indie devs are already acting against Unity.
It's to let them know that they mean business. I know that's something that's not easy to do, but you got to like and respect their resolve.I just don't understand how you can just delete a game from a store like that, that's freaking crazy.
Nintendo's version of Cutie Honey? I'm in.Princess Peach Showtime (March 22): that Peach game obviously. Platformer with themed transformations
Funny enough, this is what Max and the YoVideogames crew wanted. The only difference is that they expected it to be in 3D.People finally got F-zero.....sort of. I mean, technically.
My own take is that I considered the idea of charging the developer per install to be inherently absurd, and something one can expect from someone that would try to monetize mods, and it sounds like something that would mean that would-be review-bombers could literally financially ruin the developer instead. But the story linked by Chimpzy claimed that they have tweaked the policy for that reason.Rami Ismail said:A side-note, there's a story about Unreal & Unity that gets told in game development and enthusiast circles that I think is really worth sharing here in light of Unity's recent debacle.
For context, Unity has a bit of an undeserved "wonky" reputation amongst gamers. Unity (outside of the business nonsense right now) is an extremely capable tool, and many amazing games get made in it. But where many gamers celebrate Unreal, Unity is scorned for its brokenness.
The story goes that this comes down to a single corporate choice.
You see, most players don't quite know what a game is made in unless someone tells them, or if the game tells them. If a game "states" its engine, it's usually in the form of the good ol' splash screen - those screens you try to skip through at the game starting up.
Under Unreal's terms, any game that formally licensed the engine beyond the free edition needed to show the logo splash screen. Under Unity's terms, conversely, any game that used the Free or lower-tier editions need to show the logo screen, but paid versions do not.
Thus people kept seeing the Unreal logo only attached to commercial-grade titles by teams that had funding & experience to afford pro licensing... and the Unity logo only to games made by hobbyists that might not live up to commercial expectations. It's entirely self-inflicted.
Now as with all stories, the truth is a bit more complex than this. Regardless, the story has remained the exact same over the past years, the facts have remained unchanged - and as far as I'm aware, the licensing terms have not changed, not even Unity's.
In this situation, a similar short-sightedness applies: Unity is creating financial uncertainty & arguing that 90% of devs are "safe" -which means their top 10% developers, those who rely on the tool financially- are not, and anyone ambitious to want to reach the 10% is worried.
I'm not sure why you'd ever argue that "don't worry, unless you're successful it won't harm you" for any product meant to grow your work from amateur to professional. You effectively attaching successful use of your product to a worse experience with the product.
Anyway, I thought it was a story worth sharing. I'll continue to monitor what's happening, and for devs who need to talk or who need contacts or who need support, let me know in DMs. I'm obviously not charging consulting fees for quick asks on this one.
That douchebag?! Give it a rest old man! You already got all the money you want. Stop trying to screw everybody over and act like you're some type of corporate genius. Every developer out there that uses Unity, ditch it and move to someplace better.So turns out the current CEO of Unity was formerly the CEO of EA, and in 2011 he once proposed an idea to charge players for reloading ammo in shooter games like Battlefield.
Unity’s CEO making devs pay per install tried to charge FPS gamers per bullet
Unity CEO John Riccitiello once tried to charge gamers to reload in games such as Battlefield.stealthoptional.com