Gaming

14 readers

1 users here now

founded 2 years ago

Wait, is Unity allowed to just change its fee structure like that? (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 year ago by wave_walnut@kbin.social to c/gaming@kbin.social

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Confusing, contradictory terms of service clauses leave potential opening for lawsuits.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes, but if you don't upgrade, you can keep using the old license. Unity tried to delete this from the Internet.

[–] Neato@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So if you've published a game, just keep on keeping on. You can sell that game, maintain an older copy of Unity to update it for bugs, even develop new content for that game with the older version of Unity.

I figured this must have been in here. No professional organization would allow a TOS to pass into publishing that allowed a company to unilaterally change fees.

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

So if you've published a game, just keep on keeping on. You can sell that game, maintain an older copy of Unity to update it for bugs, even develop new content for that game with the older version of Unity.

According to the article, probably no.

Many devs may have updated unity and used it for minor updates, but also the clause in question probably doesn't protect anyone anyway. There's a broader ToS that supercedes it with much more restrictive language.

[–] spriteblood@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is still up on their FAQ:

Yes, the fee applies to eligible games currently in market that continue to distribute the runtime. We look at a game's lifetime installs to determine eligibility for the runtime fee. Then we bill the runtime fee based on all new installs that occur after January 1, 2024.

[–] ripcord@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

I love that their "proprietary" method of determining installs is to just look at the # of installs reported publicly by Google and Apple app stores.

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

According to the article, it's not that simple. This is from the ToS for the Unity Editor, which is subservient to a broader Unity ToS that has much stricter legal language about changing anything without warning and the customer being able to go fuck themselves.

So, yes, technically this bullshit may be completely legal. Devs who were sold Unity on "no royalties" may be forced to pay royalties. Which is definitely healthy for our society and not obviously a problem.