The problem is not that they wanted a cut. The problem is that they want to retroactively apply to all games that have ever been published and even those that aren’t using the most recent engine.
Also, there are cases where a developer might squeeze $100k out of sales and then get a game pass deal where they get another $100k that would result in them getting 5 million downloads. That would result in the fee being $1 million because they’re on the lower tier subscription.
They are doing this for two reasons from what I can tell:
a) they want a cut of game pass volume
b) they want to worse high volume micro transaction games onto their own ad network (if you sign up to their ad network you don’t pay the fee)
The biggest problem is them attempting to bill people who have already released games and might still get the odd download. It’s crazy cause these developers never agreed to the new license AND it’s highly doubtful this would be legal anyway because contracts need consideration. “We just want more money” probably won’t cut the mustard.
That's not 100% true. Fee applies to eligible games currently in market that continue to distribute the runtime. That's because otherwise is really hard to pin a TOS version. I'm not lawyer, but for all services that we use, i.e paypal, we receive monthly emails about TOS changes, and you have to accept them, to keep using their services...
Unlike PayPal though, you can't just close your account and hop to stripe instead. Once you develop a game you're stuck with that engine until you redevelop the game. Moving engines is not easy simple or fast.
It's like if I owned an old version of Photoshop and Adobe contacted me to say that because the jpg I produced blew up on Twitter I owe them $1000. I can't retroactively take the picture down and recreate it in gimp and I shouldn't have to. Most alternative products to unity simply do a hand wave to old products. "If your game was made in engine 2.0 you have this pricing structure, but engine 3.0 users have a different one"
> It's like if I owned an old version of Photoshop and Adobe contacted me to say that because the jpg I produced blew up on Twitter I owe them $1000.
Bad analogy. If you remove your game from any store, and you are not making more than 200k (free license) or 1M (for pro/enterprise license) last year, then you are fine. Nothing will be charged from you. If you released the game, did't update it, no bug fixes, nothing, but still profiting from it, and people still downloading it, then you will pay the 0.20 cents per install... It is just like that. People are jumping in a drama, that affect only huge mobile games, which are full with ads, addictive, that through Gamification try to earn screen time from the users.. Unity is greedy, but mostly the devs being affected by that, aren't those writing indie games.
It's like if I took an old version of photoshop and sold the pictures on patreon, but my patreon blew up and adobe decided they wanted a piece of the pie and changed their TOS, and made me take the jpg I made when I was under a DIFFERENT TOS down,remake the jpg in GIMP, or pay them for the privilege of keeping that picture up on the internet, and also any time that picture appears on imageboard I could also maybe be charged for it, but they totally have a way to tell if it was gotten from the imageboard or patreon trust them but they won't tell us how.
Unity has trapped game developers and held them hostage. Those devs made the game under one set of rules and pricing model, and now that the game is out they have a choice of destroying their product by removing it from availability, or pay money they had no way of predicting they would need? Just because you don't like the game devs doesn't mean Unity didn't fuck them over, and it sets a dangerous precedent.
Also, there are cases where a developer might squeeze $100k out of sales and then get a game pass deal where they get another $100k that would result in them getting 5 million downloads. That would result in the fee being $1 million because they’re on the lower tier subscription.
They are doing this for two reasons from what I can tell: a) they want a cut of game pass volume b) they want to worse high volume micro transaction games onto their own ad network (if you sign up to their ad network you don’t pay the fee)
The biggest problem is them attempting to bill people who have already released games and might still get the odd download. It’s crazy cause these developers never agreed to the new license AND it’s highly doubtful this would be legal anyway because contracts need consideration. “We just want more money” probably won’t cut the mustard.