I wonder whether Unity actually has agreements with the likes of Microsoft, Sony, Steam etc that form a viable basis for charging them in the way Unity describes?
I wonder whether Unity actually has agreements with the likes of Microsoft, Sony, Steam etc that form a viable basis for charging them in the way Unity describes?
I'm sure that Nintendo will take a benign, tolerant view of this attempt to extort millions of dollars from them.
Meanwhile, r/Godot is hopping with activity. Seems that a lot of devs are, for some unknown reason, suddenly interested in a game engine that's distributed on a FOSS license (MIT in Godot's case).
Originally Posted by Isyel
Its such a shame what they are doing to Unity.
That's Parasite Capitalism for you, as I'm sure comrade Keckers would agree were he not so averse to collective action solutions like Open Source.
No doubt Riccatello will move to a new host when this one dies.
It's becoming worse.
Unity bought ironSource in July 2022. It provides the means for mobile apps to show ingame ads and microtransactions. Their competitor, AppLovin, wanted to acquire Unity, but Unity refrained.
And now apparently Unity offered developers ditching AppLovin for ironSource to forfeit those per-install licenses.
As a result of Unity's license change, developers now are [turning off ironSource](https://azurgames.com/blog/collectiv...-are-reviewed/) and encourage others to do so. Obviously Unity gets their cut by sales made through and ads show by ironSource. And those sales from mobile games seem to be a good chunk of Unity's overall sales. The developers also cut off their income by doing so, which goes to show how important those that participate find this issue.
There has also been some shenanigans with Unity's license agreement going on. Back then, they published their license as a Github repo so that every change to it can be tracked. And it include a statement that allowed developers to stay with the previous license, if they don't agree to the new one. This would allow them to stay on the Unity version and ToS they used up until the change. But in April (I think) this year, Unity took the repository down ... make of that what you want.
"Holy shit, I ask you to stop being autistic and you debate what autistic is." - spasm
Unity CEO John Riccitiello retires, ex-Red Hat CEO James M. Whitehurst takes over as interim CEO.
Unity confirm exactly zero changes of direction in the announcement.
That was incredibly clever and honest. Now we gotta look forward to the new easy to access and scale game engine.
Release date > game state
Marketing > devs
Why is it called earth, when it is mostly water???
At least they were honest up it upfront.
What I don't understand: why buy a game and be disappointed although the developer stated it'll perform poorly? Just fucking wait 'til the relevant patches have been released.
Sorry, no, we don't give devs a pat on the back for STILL RELEASING a game in a crap state just because they admitted it.
Crunch culture. Pure poison. Admitting it does nothing for players or devs.
If you can't make the game, you don't release it - it's as simple as that.
Cities Skylines II "fix"Sorry, no, we don't give devs a pat on the back for STILL RELEASING a game in a crap state just because they admitted it.
Crunch culture. Pure poison. Admitting it does nothing for players or devs.
If you can't make the game, you don't release it - it's as simple as that.
Switch from 'Fullscreen' to 'Windowed Fullscreen' (or vice-versa)
Set 'Depth of Field Mode' to 'Disabled'
Set 'Volumetric Quality' to 'Disabled'
Set 'Level of Detail' to Very Low
Turn motion blur off
Why is it called earth, when it is mostly water???
I thought they released Ark 2, ut apparently its just Ark ported to UE5. Which I'm sure baout a year ago we were told we were getting this upgrade for free. Wich seems a little sharp at £35?
Yeah i'm a bit confused by all this as well. It does look good, though right now apparently runs like shit - but is EA/Alpha code. Apparently.
£35 reskin of a 10 year old game instead of making ficking Ark2 yeah yeah yeah.
technology can’t solve economic and political problems
I stumbled over this a few times in the last weeks: The conflation of Developer/game studio/Publisher.
I'm sure people don't actually mean "the developers" meaning the actual people who sit at the PC and program software and game engines.
They probably don't even mean Studio, because those mostly don't get a say in when something is released.
So this "The Devs released the game in a broken state" or "The devs shouldn't selll this shit at full price" is really grating.
Can we please strive to blame the Publisher, and maybe studio management, and not the Devs?
Problem is, if you delay the launch by say 3 months all that means is that the actual devs will be in a crunch for 3 months longer.Sorry, no, we don't give devs a pat on the back for STILL RELEASING a game in a crap state just because they admitted it.
Crunch culture. Pure poison. Admitting it does nothing for players or devs.
If you can't make the game, you don't release it - it's as simple as that.
Skylines II is on gamepass. That should give anyone a chance to test it without spending full price on it. The game will receive tons of patches and expansions, until the first ones drop one can wait and then buy a discounted base game on Steam when the first DLC drops.
nevar forget
Well the drama continued sort of.Yeah i'm a bit confused by all this as well. It does look good, though right now apparently runs like shit - but is EA/Alpha code. Apparently.
£35 reskin of a 10 year old game instead of making ficking Ark2 yeah yeah yeah.
Turns out Snail games signed an exclusive hosting deal iwth Nitrado for a reported $10m to fund the game development company. This manifested at launch as Ark:SA not allowing anyone to self host* on their own hardware. (Assumptions made that Nitrado is the only host allowed to commercially advertise)
Plus Nitrado were forcing people to pick 26xslot servers, ie. very expensive. Caused a huge outcry and multiple youtube videos about it.
Well the backlash worked because Snail released a patch re-enabling Ark:SA dedicated servers to be self hosted. So yay for consumers!
*Additional info: You could self host but you'd have to buy the game to host. They had disabled nonymous steamcmd.
Christ that all sounds like a super-hard pass on general "these devs are dickwads" principals.
technology can’t solve economic and political problems
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks