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

[–] 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.