Unity is mad that mobile game companies acquire millions of users in a few months as they transition from soft launch to global, and then sell their companies for millions - if not billions - of dollars.
They want a cut of that pie, and in true unity fashion, they chose the most inept way of doing that.
If you have developers of games like Cult of the Lamb feeling scared, you did it wrong.
You protect your indies, you protect the people making art with your product. The people who invested 3 million and are making billions in the mobile ads game? That’s your target.
How they could be this inept is astounding…
Also, I’ll echo the other commenter’s statement in saying the article is very well written. They just weren’t able to really answer the “why” portion very well. John Riccitiello wasn’t wrong when he said this plan wasn’t designed to affect 90% of their customers - but it also doesn’t mention how that remaining 10% makes more than that 90% combined.
They’re wet go, John Riccitiello! That’s why I recognized that assholes smirk in the thumbnail. He used to be president of EA. No surprise he’s brought those scummy tactics over to unity.
This is like the dude who sells the pickaxes getting mad at the miners when they find gold. So he tries to incorporate some sort of pay per swing model. Absolutely horrendous idea if you don’t own the entire market on pickaxes.
It’s more like the mine owner getting mad at the people who find gold, but it is overall a correct analogy. The issue is that, keeping up with the prior metaphor, there are no other viable gold mines in the area - so the owner has started to ask themselves “why shouldn’t I charge more got access to my mine?”
The pickaxe is a better analogy. Unity engine is a tool that devs could leverage to build a great selling game, and the price-per-swing is a nice way to encapsulate the absurdity of Unity’s new fee structure.
I was thinking the mine because of the complexity involved with maintaining an engine. Less a pick axe with monetization per swing, and more a mine with monetislzation per ore mined.
But, regardless of the metaphor chosen, I think my point still stands. Shitty for Unity to act that way…
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
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.
Unity is mad that mobile game companies acquire millions of users in a few months as they transition from soft launch to global, and then sell their companies for millions - if not billions - of dollars.
They want a cut of that pie, and in true unity fashion, they chose the most inept way of doing that.
If you have developers of games like Cult of the Lamb feeling scared, you did it wrong.
You protect your indies, you protect the people making art with your product. The people who invested 3 million and are making billions in the mobile ads game? That’s your target.
How they could be this inept is astounding…
Also, I’ll echo the other commenter’s statement in saying the article is very well written. They just weren’t able to really answer the “why” portion very well. John Riccitiello wasn’t wrong when he said this plan wasn’t designed to affect 90% of their customers - but it also doesn’t mention how that remaining 10% makes more than that 90% combined.
Ffs Unity, get your shit together…
They’re wet go, John Riccitiello! That’s why I recognized that assholes smirk in the thumbnail. He used to be president of EA. No surprise he’s brought those scummy tactics over to unity.
Companies always do this shit, penny wise, pound foolish.
This is like the dude who sells the pickaxes getting mad at the miners when they find gold. So he tries to incorporate some sort of pay per swing model. Absolutely horrendous idea if you don’t own the entire market on pickaxes.
It’s more like the mine owner getting mad at the people who find gold, but it is overall a correct analogy. The issue is that, keeping up with the prior metaphor, there are no other viable gold mines in the area - so the owner has started to ask themselves “why shouldn’t I charge more got access to my mine?”
The pickaxe is a better analogy. Unity engine is a tool that devs could leverage to build a great selling game, and the price-per-swing is a nice way to encapsulate the absurdity of Unity’s new fee structure.
I was thinking the mine because of the complexity involved with maintaining an engine. Less a pick axe with monetization per swing, and more a mine with monetislzation per ore mined.
But, regardless of the metaphor chosen, I think my point still stands. Shitty for Unity to act that way…