this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
241 points (96.2% liked)

Games

16752 readers
527 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The fans really rose to the occasion.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dirk_Darkly@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why does Unity deserve a cut of the profits from games made with their tools? Seems as ridiculous to me as a maker of power tools demanding a cut of profits from contractors using their products.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How else are they going to pay to improve the engine and add things. A revenue cut is the market standard. In fact, Unity comes in slightly lower than Unreal Engine with the newer terms.

You don't try to change things retroactively though. That's not how contracts work. What they tried to do original was both not a good deal and most likely not legal. They lost everyone's confidence. This isn't because they wanted money, but because how they went about it.

[–] Dirk_Darkly@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They'll pay by charging customers a reasonable licensing fee. Market standards are meaningless in an age of aggressive monetization and consolidation. Of course they'll try and get away with as much as they can and people have been shown to excuse a lot. However, I would pose that is entirely unreasonable that providing access to tools earns anyone a portion of future sales.

This very clearly goes beyond paying to improve the services and is simply about maximizing profit.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 months ago

I partially agree, but I also disagree that it's all about profit. The point of revenue sharing is that if they make the engine well, then it becomes more likely for your game to be successful. That revenue share can be re-invested to continue improving it.

Would you say that the engine is not part of the game? In what way is it seperate from the thing you created? Employees ideally should get a share of revenue, as they helped create the product, and the engine is part of the product, so their employees should get a share for the work they helped create as well.