It's not about panic. It's about the trust that is completely lost and will not return unless the CEO steps down. Unity is most likely going to crash and burn w/o and putting any amount of faith in them any further is too risky. What ever your plans are it should be to move away from unity in the long term.
Panic means making a move quickly rather than waiting for the whole story to unfold. Why do you need to move today instead of in a week? Can't you make that decision at the end of the month? Do you have to make it today? Maybe you make the same decision then, but you will have had time to hear them out and see the situation fully unfold rather than hastily making a decision. As @Refactorear pointed out, Java went through this and came out the other side.
But does Java have a history of upsetting its customers? I'm not part of that community, but I can tell you that I've been consistently upset by Unity. Enough is enough for some people, and if it's feasible to leave, then let them. I understand what you're saying about making a panic decision, but personally, I've had enough, and I'm in the group of people who won't have a hard time moving to something else. I've been playing around with MonoGame for a few years, so that's where I'll be.
My prediction is that Godot will now be catapulted into the position of being the Blender of Game Dev. It is going to take time though. I hope they expand their C# support and Docs - as a hobbyist I prefer using and supporting Open Source anyway. Tim, great video - you've turned this into a learning opportunity. The reality is that, in tech, these things happen - tech changes, licences change etc. etc. and being able to make a calm, considered decision on how to react is an important skill for developers and those working in technology more generally, to master.
Funny that you would make the Blender comparison as Blender was considered a "toy" 3d application and only in the last 5+ years has it become a serious competitor to 3DSM and Maya. I haven't used Godot yet personally, but I get the sense that it's still in the same "toy" phase. Not quite ready for primetime, but I suspect it will get there eventually.
@@Tsunami14 yeah, that is exactly what I am thinking - Blender has shown that once freelance professionals start to take it seriously an open source option can hold its own, and even become the preferred option for many.
Trust is the most important thing between business and business. I learned about the company's situation while watching the Unity incident this time, but the company's financial situation seems to be too bad to continue to believe blindly. I'm going to Unreal. I don't know about Unity, but just looking at the company's financial situation, Epic Games, unlike Unity, is very likely not to go bankrupt in five years, or even 10 years. Considering trust and stability, I think moving from Unity to Unreal is better for the future.
Just to be clear, Epic doesn't have a great track record as a company either. However, they do seem to be more solid than Unity at the moment. Just don't go in with rose-colored glasses.
Remember the Epic vs Apple thing that temporarily got Fortnite removed and Unreal products blocked on the Apple store? Maybe think of swinging those C# skills toward Godot instead of swapping to C++.
The real question is, how did we end up allowing companies to mass collect such amount of telemetry, if they are that confident to get actual real data about each installation of each game.
Some of this could be obvious telemetry. For example, they said that when a game installs, it pulls the runtime from Unity servers. That means they can capture every time their server gets hit. Now how they know which game is requesting that data is another story. At the end of the day, though, everything is spying on us to some extent. Siri/Alexa/etc. are listening to us even when we don't say their name (how else can they listen for their name). We use CDNs on our websites (which will tell third parties about our traffic). We capture Google Analytics for every website in order to understand visitor habits and improve our sites. The list goes on, unfortunately. The best we've been able to do to stop this type of thing is to make it anonymized and aggregated (thanks GDPR and others).
Thanks for the update on the situation with Unity. I am one of the "interested" with the Unity master course, but due to student loans coming in October and the merger in July with IronSource, I was hesitant and held off. I guess I will wait and see.
This also occurred with Identity Server, something beautiful and nice that was free and became paid… We had to start from scratch and create another identity server in our business because of this change
I believe it does, but there are two things working in the favor of those apps. First, making $200,000 in ads in a year with ads in an app is a monumental task. Even if they hit that threshold, they could pay the $2,000 for a pro license and bump that limit up to $1 million. Second, Unity has their own ads system. They've already said that if you use their ads system, they will reduce the per installation fees for when you cross the threshold.
I think the problem was basing the payments on the installs, and not on the revenue. as you said, it could lead to situations where the fees eat into the profits and suddenly you owe unity more than you made. I knew that tracking installations was something they couldn't accurately do, but I didn't know they also are unable to track profits (even from the big platforms). how does Unreal engine handle this? do they have a deal with steam to split the money? edit: also, in my untrained opinion, that seems like insider trading. how is that legal?
There might have to be some self-reporting. Not sure. As for insider trading, it seems that way, especially since it is rumored that this was planned up to a year ago. However, the line on insider trading is a bit blurry so who knows.
1:03:05 Please don't recommend "limited edition games". That kind of FOMO manipulation encourages piracy and you'll get an earful from internet archivists about artistic media preservation and anti-consumer practices. And just to clarify, I'm not talking about collector's edition/director's cut extras to a base game - I mean the game itself.
Regarding the sale of 2,000 stock by Riccitiello at 47:20 - I don't see evidence of stock dumping. It's true he sold 2,000 shares at $40 - for all of $80,000 total. Meanwhile he retains 3,200,000 shares in the company, per his SEC filing for the sale. Looking back on his history he's sold shares pretty regularly with this year being remarkably few compared to the past. So I think he actually believes in the direction the company is taking with this asinine decision of theirs to at least prop up the stock value. Likely it would mean a revenue increase for unity in the short term. Long term however is a very different story in my view.
If it was possible for service provider to know for certain if the game copy was pirated or not, video-game piracy would be no longer a thing. Having this bold statement, which they have no way of backing, Unity just makes one of the main issues developers seem to be having with these new changes - trusting the company - even worse.
Well, I kind of saw something like this coming. It takes just one CEO and a few people in power at the top to make changes that can affect or even kill a company. I experienced this in my previous job and had to leave because I couldn't bear to see the clients so upset. I decided to start my own company and completely rewrote the software. Fortunately for me I not developing a game but I did have eyes to use Unity for the app, I didn't, I used MAUI Blazor. I really dodged a bullet there. We do face another problem. If everyone abandons Unity, it would leave Unreal Engine as the sole dominant player, giving them the power to do anything they want. We should also keep an eye on Unreal Engine's developments in the coming years.
You are correct. Options are really important to keep companies innovating. I'm hopeful Godot can continue to make positive strides as well, even if Unity survives this (I think they will). A third option would be really good.
@@IAmTimCorey Hey Tim, when you say you think Unity survives, what does that entail from your perspective? As I see it, it can go two ways which are both HUGE losses for game developers: 1. Unity survives, and thus realizes they can get away with shady TOS changes, enforced internet tracking (spyware), unreliable pricing among other terrible things, leaving the already very unreliable CEO and executives in a powerful and honestly terrifying position over remaining Unity developers' future and dreams of developing games. 2. Enough people leave Unity and finds other engines to work in, leaving Unity as a tool and engine to "die" and become obsolete. It's a huge loss for the gaming industry as a whole, since Unity as a tool is both very fun and easy to learn and has (had) a huge community for support, which is already starting to fall apart. I have a hard time seeing the light at the end of the tunnel as an upcoming developer.
Good video, usually i wait for things to blow over and then you realise they're not as dramatic as the initial wave of outcry makes out but this one i just can't get my head around it is genuinely baffling how they thought this was a good idea
Things are almost never as dramatic as they initially seem, but that doesn't mean they aren't bad. Hopefully, this situation gets a LOT better, because right now it is pretty bad.
Do you think this is going to have any notable impact on C# as a whole? Unity is one of the big names in the C# space, and often shows up in Microsoft's promotions. A massive turn against Unity feels like it might influence people's feelings about C#. And this is on top of the longer-term negative views about Microsoft, and their potential intentions to capture and control developers.
Good question. I don't think it will, but it isn't going to help. With Godot supporting C#, there is still a major engine using it (and now a popular one). But you never know. This might be bad enough to drag down the reputations of those around it.
I answered that near the end. Right now, we are being patient, waiting for more information before making a long-term decision. No matter what, we will take care of people and do what we feel is best for everyone.
I have been working with unity for more than 6 years now, but i guess it is time to change to another engine. The trust is broken even when they step back from their decision. Thank you for the video.
I really appreciate your honesty and transparency Tim, it would be easy to defend Unity given your recent investment into creating teaching resources for it. I think the takeaway of "think it over, don't make rash decisions" is a good one. I know you said Godot doesn't have an established path to publishing, or monetisation model, but considering the lead time for developing a game (likely >2 years), would it be a reasonable bet to assume all of those things will be in place by then? Alternatively, would developing in Unity and then potentially porting to Godot further down the line be possible (given that they both support C#)?
Godot has been around almost as long as Unity has. It isn't a new platform. It has grown more slowly because of the funding, but now it is being fast-tracked because of the influx of interest. I don't know if they can get a good monetization model in place or not. I'm curious how that would work. Would they start charging a usage fee like Unity and Unreal do? Would the community rebel against that? That's the best option I can see, but it is also the one that is the most fraught with danger. Developing a game in Unity in order to port it isn't a great idea. However, learning Unity and building games in it in order to improve your game development skills with the idea that you may move to Godot in the future is a great idea. The hardest part of game development is the skills that come with experience - scoping, making it fun, incorporating feedback, etc. Those aren't engine-specific.
@@IAmTimCorey this is true. I've decided to push on with it, accepting the longer term risks. Btw, I've been following a Unity course in Udemy ("Complete C# Unity Game Developer 3D"), but it's quite a bit out of date. It's taken me ages to figure out how to create a follow camera as the course shows how to do it in Unity 2020, and I'm using Unity 2022. Long story short, I'm keeping an eye out for your mastercourse!
After all the support Microsoft gave to unity it's very sad to see something like this happening. It was already part of visual studio starting screen and one of the biggest references about the use of C#, this not only harm unity itself but also the C# ecosystem and maybe even Microsoft since it was one of the "trusted partners". Was excited to try some unity programming on my free time but now...
It’s not about the price anymore, it’s about sending a message. They tried to force the issue, and slip crap past the radar. Now, they’re paying for it. No terms, even the most favorable, is or should be accepted without community and customer input.
By this logic, though, you couldn't work with anyone. All companies change the terms over time and they don't always consult with their communities or customers. This particular one was egregious, but it isn't unique to Unity. Google, for example, has killed dozens of services over the years without user feedback (or against it). For example, they recently started doing domain name registration then, more recently, they sold that off to a company that will charge double for domain name renewals (after the first year). Should we then not ever trust Google? I think the answer is that we need to learn from the situation and be more cautious, but we also have to make the best choice for the situation. I still use some Google services, even though I do not trust Google not to kill services, because it is still the best option for certain situations. I may use Unity in the future because it is the best choice for a given situation, even if I don't trust them. If I sent a message to every company that "crossed" me, I'd be doing nothing but sending messages. We can't compound a bad situation by shooting ourselves in the foot.
@@IAmTimCorey You’re completely right, it was poor wording on my part. What I intended to communicate was that any future contracts or agreements *with Unity* rather than the entire market, in particular because language in a previous ToS from Unity implies this sort of across the board change would not occur. That in particular, I believe, goes against the whole concept of good faith contracts, which is what facilitates contracts in the first place. When we know a particular company is willing to act in bad faith, it’s not reasonable to expect good faith in the future without direct negotiation and legally binding contracts. As the saying goes, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Very true. They definitely need to put together a solid legal document that, going forward, protects the developers as well as themselves (not just themselves).
excellent breakdown. As soon as a company wants to enter and "float" on the stockmarket, you get the board and directors (usually new to the company) who come in..tell lies about "we will not change anything", who will actively from day one look to maximise the profit of the company for the shareholders. They simply do not care about which company they are in charge of, unity could be a teabag making company, they will do the same process. The insider trading (or so it seems) is another of their plays. sell the stock, trash the company, rebuy the useless stock... its a game. meanwhile the company will crash, the software IP and source will be sold to others, the board and ceo will simply side step into another company and do the same stuff (and sing how great they were for the stockholders) i find it so disheartening to see the hard work of the unity staff and their excellent product be ripped apart like this.
Two reasons: first, people are waiting to see what Unity actually does. Second, Unity makes its money on ads right now, not on the platform. So if tons of people leave the platform (and most aren't paying much of anything right now), but the big players stay and start paying something now beyond what they were, the end result could be an increase in income with a decrease in costs.
A follow-up video is coming once Unity makes it clear what they will be doing going forward. Then we will discuss how to move forward from here (or at least the various options for moving forward depending on your circumstance).
TBH I think panicking and outrage was warranted here. Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal and its easily noticeable. People are getting tired of fees... every corporation is tacking on fees, they're popping up everywhere (the BMW seat warming fiasco comes to mind) and to be honest in this case I think the outrage was helpful because it makes the idea of something like this a scary proposition to even try in the future, if the public had quietly swallowed this or had a calm reaction to it. Unreal would been like maybe we can do this too, then Gamemaker, then Microsoft, this practice could have taken hold across the industry and possibly into others. Enough is enough...
There's a difference between outrage and panic. Outrage says "we aren't going to take this". Panic says "I'm going to make a snap decision that will have a major financial impact on my life that I don't even really understand yet." I'm outraged over the pricing model. That's one of the reasons I created this video. But just because I'm outraged doesn't mean I need to make a decision right this instant. I can let the situation develop a bit before making a choice. I can go into that choice with my eyes wide open as well.
@@IAmTimCorey Of course, but to be fair that's exactly what Unity did they made a snap decision and made it retroactive. Their initial line of thinking is too telling to a lot of devs. It's also important to note that the dev's didn't just panic, Unity created the panic, and did nothing to quell it for days. Personally, I'm glad some people panicked and decided to switch, as not every decision has to involve financials. I wish more people/companies thought this way. In fact, only thinking about financials is exactly what caused this. A message needed to be sent across the industry, and not a calm, measured, wait and see, message. That being said, there's nothing wrong with being calm if that's how you wish to act, but in this case there's also nothing wrong with taking a risk to punish bad/greedy corporate behavior especially since there are alternatives to unity.
First, trying to argue that we should make snap decisions because Unity did isn't a great argument. Second, that's not what Unity did. Insiders have said that these pricing changes have been worked on since January. Just because they aren't good choices doesn't mean they didn't take their time on them. As for taking a risk to punish a company, that is unwise. Don't risk going out of business in order to "punish" someone else who probably won't even notice.
@@IAmTimCorey You're missing the point man. Yes, Unity may have been working on these changes for a while, but they kept this knowledge from the majority of their userbase, save a few insiders who couldn't/wouldn't talk about it. So, from a user perspective It's a snap decision made by a Unity that would have taken effect not next year not in 2025 but in a couple of months. And to its users this perception is their reality i.e., a snap decision on unity's part. Secondly the snap decision on unity dev's to bail didn't happen in a vacuum, it happened for the reasons above, I don't think the risk to jump ship was unwise. Is it unwise to swat a mosquito that landed on your arm, or should you wait calmly to see if it will drink first, because there's a risk that a hard swat might hurt your arm for a little while. The risk wasn't unwise, and unity certainly noticed the backlash, and so did all of the other companies. Yes, there's a time for calm action. This just wasn't one of those times.
A snap decision would have been immediate. We had 4 months notice. What you are advocating for is making a decision in hours or maybe a day or two when you have up to four months to make that call. That is unwise. Now that Unity has come out with a really rock-solid solution that addresses practically every concern (including putting legal language in place that prevents them from doing this again), a lot of companies/developers are deciding to come back to Unity. They made big, public statements about how they would never use Unity again and now they are using Unity again. Others made big, public statements and feel like they can't go back on what they said even if they want to. There was a way to let Unity know this is unacceptable while at the same time not risking your future. As for your mosquito reference, that's not a good analogy. Unity didn't make any immediate changes. They made changes that would have gone into effect four months in the future. If a mosquito lands on your arm and a 1-hour countdown clock starts before they will bite you, you don't have to flail your arms, knock over your drink, and fall out of your chair trying to kill it. You can calmly evaluate the situation and identify how best to deal with it. On a construction site, if a worker gets a nail embedded in their hand, the solution isn't to yank it out even though it shouldn't be there and it is an emergency. The solution is to go to the hospital and have it removed. The doctors too will not just yank it out. They will plan carefully how to remove it. The reason why is because you can do more harm by being hasty. A lot of developers are learning this lesson first-hand this week.
You should look at what indie studios are saying about how unity is approaching them offering 80 percent off installs if they switch their add sense to use theirs
Unity should pay you for making lecture about their pricing policy xD If pricing table is not clear or full of traps then you should use product made by other company.
I think they will make the pricing more clear. They didn't really understand what they were doing when they made it. However, I'm not confident that the clarity will make things better.
As someone who has developed and released a mobile game with Unity, I will no longer be using Unity unless this changes. I will switch to Unreal Engine. It’s unfortunate too because Unity is a great platform
Also remember this is $200k revenue in the LAST 12 MONTGS. You can also make $100k every year for many years on your game and not be charged anything. This means your game can earn well over 200k in revenue and still not be eligible to be charged
That might be good, but I'm also concerned that since Unity isn't in Microsoft's core business model, it might not get the resources it needed to succeed.
Absolutely I'd say don't panic. I think as you alluded to, it's practically impossible to walk it back and for people believe them because they've proven themselves an untrustworthy company without new leadership. The sequence of unethical decisions at the top just can't be rectified any other way in my mind. I think as you said Tim with don't panic, that probably means planning subsequent courses in another engine, potentially you can an add-on for your Unity course with a guide to change engine.
but i'm not sure about its performance as you know godot's 3d performance is no where near to unity's one if thats the case with stride game engine then it doesnt make any sense to use it...
Freemium games/apps cannot afford a flat fee per install. It doesn't matter if you get $200k or $1 million, you can end up being taxed more than you actually earn. Many companies that follow this business model will go bankrupt. If Unity insists on this terrible idea, they should at least include a cap for freemium.
I'm all for the company providing the tool to build your game getting some of the profit once the developer is profiting. But it needs to be on a real metric, copies sold. Games get sold once not every time someone installs them, why should it be different for the tools? They should also think about a percentage of the profit up to a set amount. That way devs won't just increase the price of their games. And it needs to be after the cost of store fees are taken because those are crazy high and already cut the profits. Trying to make more money in this way isn't going to work, they will lose the developers before increasing income, and the existing model was the rules they set with us beforehand to increase the number of devs using the platform, they could have stayed with the pay to use model, not the free until you profit model. I would be interested in seeing Godot tutorials and having a section in the Master Course using Godot just to cover other options.
I think that a capped fee would be good, although it would be hard to implement well. As for this move in particular, it might be that they don't care that they will lose developers. They are going to lose the indie developers mostly, not necessarily the big players (at least in the short term). If that's the case, they will lose the people who never paid them anyway and get lots more income from the existing games on the platform. For example, I don't believe Blizzard pays anything to Unity for Hearthstone at this point. If even just that game started paying for installations (even at the greatly reduced Enterprise rate), that would be a big income surge for Unity.
it's a non-issue to me... why are people freaking out that one of the most positively impactful projects to game development is finally trying to get its dues in terms of compensation from the developers that exploit it. it's the people that have been offering Unity games for (almost) free that need to justify themselves. Unity is probably going to need any monetary compensation it can get to compete with Unreal Engine... that's what I'm most concerned with... it's risk of being rendered irrelevant entirely by its main competition.
It isn't about Unity wanting compensation. If they had approached it correctly, this would have been mostly a non-issue. The issue was how they broke trust. They used to have terms that said that new pricing structures would only happen with new LTS releases. They quietly deleted those terms and said the new pricing would apply to all games going forward regardless of LTS used. They also put out a fee structure that was uncertain. Devs had no way of knowing what they would be charged or how much of their income to set aside. In the worst cases, the pricing structure would have taken more money than the developers made. That is a big deal.
As someone who is new to game development and considering making a game(haven't started), I think I'll just start somewhere else where there is more trust like Godot or Unreal.
I am, and I'm also teaching a course on game development. I use Unity because I can reuse my C# skills to build games. I love being able to reuse my skills.
No, not yet. I probably will, but for now I've only developed them for myself for fun. I haven't really found a polished idea that I like that I also think is something others would like. Game development is only minorly about the technical side (programming, graphic design, music, etc.) It is more about developing a compelling concept that is interesting, engaging, and with a compelling story. That's the really hard part. No one really wants another generic RPG. I've got some ideas, and I'm working on distilling them to their core and tweaking them until I come up with something that I think people will really enjoy. Then I'll spend the time to create it. They probably won't be what you would expect, though. One of the concepts I'm working on right now is influenced by the word-creation game Bookworm from PopCap (it no longer exists). That was a blast, but the clones and competitors just don't have that same energy. I'm working through why and what would be fun. I've got some fun multiplayer ideas, but I want to nail the core gameplay loop for single player first.
I think it's a mix of reasons, Unity not being recognized as the engine of cheap free to play games with unethical practices and poor quantity click baits. Force developers to upgrade to higher tiers instead of using the personal version forever. Hopefully these changes will allow Unity to get better rep for gamers and be known for better produced games for the gamers in the future. How many other gamers cringe when they download a game and see the made with unity splash screen?
At best, this seems like extremely severe mismanagement at the helm of someone who is a sociopath, and at worse, a pump and dump (or at least attempted).
Don't forget that $200,000 is gross not net, which means how much you get before you have paid the bills. Oops! You now said that. Lol Serve myself right for not watching to the end before commenting.
Unity really screwed up here. I disagree with their decision, but here's my alternative solution: Use Unity, as usual, but publish your games only in cloud gaming services, where the installation count is likely not going to exceed their threshold, and you can still reach (potentially) unlimited users.
I was listening in background and must've missed it. But it is an interesting idea. I also liked your idea of a limited number of keys or sales. @@IAmTimCorey
Well, you can try to trick them by limiting your game sales, but what if they change or even completely lift their free of charge limits in a year, two or five years? As Tim said, i wouldn't panic, but i think it's time to move to UE, if not just right now, then when circumstances are more favourable.
I don't see how that relates at all to the situation. The issue is the licensing. They need to fix that. Making them turn Unity into an OSS project under MIT is basically saying "turn over all of your hard work to us for free and hope that we don't just fork the repo and cut you out entirely". That's not a business model that makes sense. Unity has the right to have a proprietary, closed-source engine. Microsoft Office isn't open source. Neither is Windows, MacOS, or the TH-cam source code. Just because code is closed-source doesn't mean it can't be good.
ปีที่แล้ว
@@IAmTimCorey I know, just saying that situation in community looks so bad, that appears the only way for Unity as a software to survive is to go open source. I don't see them around in 10 years or so, but that is just my opinion
It doesn't look good, but also remember that we aren't making a choice in a vacuum. Right now, there are three big options: Unity, Godot, and Unreal. Godot isn't ready yet and Unreal is more complex and uses C++. So neither of those is a good option. That means that even though Unity isn't a great option either, it might still be the best option. We will see.
@@IAmTimCorey yes. I am still interested of Unity. For example it is used with ml-agents AI library and O could also practice my C# skills with Unity. Your course is still interesting for me. Hobby projects is my target with Unity.
Another thing ... if you google the revenu of unity last year ... they had earned 1.4 Billion last year of revenu ... not income. Revenu ... an increase from 1.1 Billion the year before -.- So yeah no they did not need to make more money so despartly that they had to break the trust of every single developer on their platform.
Just to be clear, revenue doesn't equal profits. Revenue is gross sales. Income is net income (total earnings or profits after expenses are deducted from revenue). A restaurant can make $1,000,000 in revenue for the year but only have $10,000 in net income (actually, that's a scarily accurate scenario for a lot of restaurants). In Unity's case, they only made a profit (having a net income above $0) in the 4th quarter last year. The other three quarters, they lost money. The real key is that Unity is an ad company that also makes a game engine. The ads are where they make their money, and Apple has strangled their income on that side (which is why they merged with ironSource and laid off their existing ad staff).
@@IAmTimCorey You are right -.- its one of the trappings of the langue it is amazing that this company that is so engrained in game development has apparently never made signficant profit ... so there must be a revenu stream that they are not disclosing under the normal income (like investors) for them to be able to cotntinue to operate. Still doesnt explains why they are so willing to shoot themself in the foot with this payment sceme. Because i cant see any way how that would be a successful way to tax the costomers more.
I understand what you're saying about not acting in a rush, but this is only the beggining, the CEO will not rest until he gets the return for his investors he got for EA tru lootboxes!!!
Here is why you shouldn't act in a rush: what if the board makes the CEO resign? What if they roll back the changes and put a license agreement in place that won't allow them to bring them back? Even if nothing changes, though, you still shouldn't rush. Remember, you aren't just jumping out of something. You are jumping into something new. So where are you jumping to? Are you jumping to Godot? Did you know that it will require you to either build or purchase a LOT of what you got for "free" with Unity? Did you know it isn't really ready for a lot of scenarios, including publishing to consoles? Or are you jumping to Unreal? Have you seen their company's track record (it definitely isn't all sunshine and roses)? Are you prepared to switch languages? Are you prepared to pay a 5% royalty on all games? Evaluating a situation as "good" or "bad" isn't the way to make a good decision. There are LOTS of situations where we evaluate something as "bad", but it is still the best choice. Microsoft has made some bad choices in the past. So has Apple, Google, and most other big companies we rely on. We still use them because there is not a better alternative. The way to make good decisions is to evaluate your options in light of the new information. You might find that the best option for you is to stick with the company that is making a bad decision. If you just act in a rush, you will leave the best situation for you and end up hurting yourself worse.
@@IAmTimCorey That's a very well written and convincing argument, I appreciate that, but neither Google nor Microsoft are the Vultures that EA became under this person's direction, and Shareholders have no reason to fire him if he does end up delivering the money, with the 2 or 3 big Titles like Genshin Impact, that will be way more than what's lost in indie developers and small companies... Ultimately, it may or may not be better to jump out of the slowly boiling water, and if enough people do, other projects may benefit and become more competitive with Unity! That's for each one to decide for themselves.
I'm not saying you can't decide that leaving is the best choice. It may be. What I'm saying is that rushing to that conclusion isn't wise. If you evaluate the entire situation and decide that is the right move for you, that's great. If you rush to do so, you may realize later that you missed a key variable that has hurt you long-term. For instance, if you are a console developer and you had a game that was halfway done and you decided quickly to leave Unity, then what? You would need to go to Unreal (Godot isn't an option for console). That means porting over to C++ as well as to the new editor. That is going to delay your game significantly. That might mean you run out of money before the development is done. The end result is that you lose money and don't have a finished game instead of having a game on a platform that you don't necessarily like or agree with their leadership.
The news just broke that the CEO (and chairman of the board of directors) has stepped down effective immediately. Since your original statement about the CEO not resting until he turns Unity into EA, does this change your mind now?
@@IAmTimCorey It does! It changes my mind towards the short term direction of Unity and hopefully a more competent person will be put in the position, still, I hope you realize this only happened because so many people spoke out with substantiated threats of leaving Unity, only with those LOUD threats of taking business elsewhere is that some amount of changes were achieved. Still, it would be best to have some other alternative than having yet another industry monopolize like we have so many! I still hope some people take the jump, and give us more sustainable options, if there truly are NO GOOD OPTIONS but Unity then long run we are screwed anyway aren't we?
So, if one does not like the game company.... Just buy it once, and script an installer for it... Then deply to a multiple of VM's... 🤦 This change is really stupid... Also, they will look at change of hardware? Not sure this will even be allowed according to gdpr rules in the EU... Alot of things here that most likely will be illegal in atleast Norway(i.e. tracking) from what I see in their changes.. 🤔 And the "pray i won't change it further"... Is a problem no matter what they do now... Even if they back-peddal on the change, what will stop them from doing it anyways, lets say ... next year? 😞
@rjean99 As expected, but only way they would be able to rectify this, would be to go more or less back, and even include it in contacts that they would not do anything like this for the next foreseeable future. But I got my doubts it would be enough tbh..
The concern I have is that Godot doesn't have a great income strategy. It is fine for now, but relying on donations is not a long-term income model that typically makes sense. So, down the road when it is more successful and the project is relied on by many more companies, what will they choose to do?
@@IAmTimCorey I think Unreal is better for most companies. But for indie devs Godot is better. Kinda like Blender vs Maya. Maya will always be better for large companies. Because it has better tech support.
Tbh, i dont agree with Unity and i postpone my plan to create digital twin of a factory using unity. But, the CEO idea about charging for every reload has been use in small game like cooking game. To proceed to next level, player need to wait for some time to get thunder or pay some dolar to get free thunder. I mean, in busines perspective, its profitable. I also hate when he said about gamer is an I****T if they dont make money from gaming. This dude definetly have some high end hobby, and definetly not gaming :D
They really screwed you over, didnt they tim? Your course just started and they come out with this clownjob. Instead you should make a short tutorial on youtube bots or something, i doubt you personally respond to all those comments haha. Also what they say is irrelevant right now, they have proven themselves to be a unreliable partner, having stable and reliable partners matter more than their backtracking and apologies.
Yep, I do personally respond to all of these comments. I've never used a TH-cam bot (not sure if there is one for leaving comments automatically). As for Unity, yes, they have really damaged their reputation. Hopefully they can come up with a good solution.
He didn't call gamers "f-ing idiots". Your lack of basic work researching any of this is depressing. He called developers "f-ing idiots", but he was talking about developers who want to add microtransactions, that don't add them right away and build their game around it -> those are the "f-ing idiots" because the game will suffer if the microtransactions are added too late in development. And of course everyone takes it out of context and just says he was insulting all devs who don't monetize their game. His statement was incredibly poorly worded, but he just wasn't saying that. Also, ironSource had people delivering Malware through their ads. That happens with ALL AD services. It happened with Google Ads in TH-cam. That doesn't make the company a Malware company, or the authors of the Malware. People of course just misrepresented it and called them a malicious company. People are stupid...
Yes, game developers. Sorry I misspoke. However, that's not out of context. Yes, he was saying that game devs that don't build monetization into their games early in the design process are f-ing idiots. Not everyone has the same goals as he seems to. As for ironSource, that's not the whole story. They created an application that distributed malware. The fact that their company did not directly create that malware isn't really the issue. Their application allowed it to the point where Malwarebytes and Windows Defender had to shut it down. They ended up abandoning that application (according to them). No, that is not what "all ad services" do or how they all work. Otherwise, there would not be any ad services.
It is a sentiment that I wished more businesses had. For my part, since I'm in a position to be one of those businesses, I work to treat my customers the way I would want businesses to treat me.
Not only Unity I think all the companies should. Unfortunately less people and companies are about building this long term trust and relationships with the community like @Tim rather generate insane profits quickly. What are my thought about the situation. 1) it’s really bad 2) People at the top of the foodchain in unity should not be at their position and maybe even held responsible for their actions - if the actions were legal I think they were a bit sketchy. 3) I would like to see in that kind of positions true passionate gamers. 4) Civ 6 and Portal 2 awesome games ❤❤. 5) If the official statement of what I understand - it is a black box - I am very worried what information are they gathering and why? And how else are they going to use them. Especially after hearing that they merged with the company that was specialized in malware. 6) I will wait for more information from Tim and unity. As I was also interested in buying the pre-order but due to some issues after a very long discussions I decided not to.
While i will not quit unity until we get some reasonable alternative with c#, I am really flabbergasted by this move from unity. Just based on this "installs" metric means there was not a single engineer or technically savy person involved in the decision making process. Apart from that they could easily just introduce a flat 1% revenue share above 200k revenue, starting with their new ai powered versions in conjuncture with the license tiers and people would be more than happy with it and bet they would even make more money from that long term. Instead they deciced for a pricing system which seems just convoluted and uselessly complicated - like they never heard of the guideline to make pricing simple and fair.
One theory is that they don't care to make it fair for indie devs because they don't care if they stick around. Indie devs don't give them any money, but they consume resources from them (per installation download of the runtime, for instance). Right now, if they can get the big players to pay them something for the games already in the store (like Hearthstone), they stand to make a big profit and reduce the amount of free people using their resources. That is incredibly short-sighted thinking, but it is a theory as to why they went ahead with this anyway. They knew it wasn't going to be popular. While they may be greedy, I don't necessarily think they are just dumb. Even if they are wrong, they have an idea on how to make this work financially for them.
While I get the this logic, I don't think that the likes of Hearthstone roll over and hand them more money than some proper lawyers cost to fight them in court about retroactive TOS changes. Two little things to the points in your video: -I dont think anyone will ever pay 20c per install, everyone who approches 200k in revenue would simply upgrade to Pro version and have a way higher limit on everything. -CEO's selling stock is strongly regulated and they sell stock all the time, as they are at least partly paid in stock it to give incentives for long term growth. The unity CEO still has by far more stock in Unity than he sold, so crashing unity would be very much against his interest.@@IAmTimCorey
1) Agreed. I think they just need to make that the planned step. Forget saying $0.20/install and just say that after you make $200,000, you need to pay for pro. 2) This wasn't just the CEO. It was the board, too, to the tune of over $4 million. I don't think they are intending to crash the stock. I think they were looking to make a little profit off of the crisis.
@@IAmTimCorey No. Not my money. Just my email from my git folder in a sleazy way. And I have no problem with dude charging money for his project, at all. A bunch of successful companies use his tool, helping then make millions, I think is reasonable that he should get something for his work! I just don't think doing it the way he did was honest. For me, Open Source isn't about free stuff, but honest OPEN stuff, hence the name.
I was talking about money when I mentioned Moq, which was the confusion. No, he didn’t ask before using your email address. He walked that back. However, I do think you are being overly harsh. He wasn’t capturing your email address, he was using the email address you use publicly on every commit. I’m not saying that was right to do, but in our frustration, we shouldn’t overblow the situation.
@@IAmTimCorey You're right, it is a public email address used in every commit, but it could totally be something else he was reaching for in that obfuscated dependency! I don't think stating that he should have been upfront with his intentions is being harsh.
I hope not. Would you still feel the same way if the CEO was removed, new leadership came in, the changes were rolled back, and the company were to commit to a better direction? It has happened before (not that I'm expecting that to happen here).
easter egg in unity... when gameaInstallation ends counter++ 😂😂😂 rest api call -> our server and update our counter column 😅 ps. I am joking (maybe not)
@@IAmTimCorey aside this charging practice that is almost illegal due to the fact that you have to certify the number of installations, gamers should pay the service but only once per account and not pay a fee per installation. We are close to another event, live service videogames where no-pc-gamer is paying a monthly fee to maintain a platform or a server when these stuff costs a lot and with the rise of the bills now they cost more than ever.... I am expecting something too on that side.
@@IAmTimCorey as you said it's going to take a lot from them but nothing less of firing the executives with everyone that approves this and full reverse but honestly i don't see any of this happening and i was setting here thinking that microsoft bought them at the same time as xamarin boy weren't i wrong
@iamtimcorey you might wanna walk this video back Brah I watch all you’d videos but this one you might wanna take a back seat on I know your defending this cause you got a course coming out but this hurts us all.
Did you actually watch the video? This isn’t a defense of Unity. I said this situation is bad and that Unity has destroyed trust with this move. That’s not a pro-Unity stance. As for me selling a course on Unity, I covered that too. I said we aren’t going to be reactionary, but let this play out a bit before making any decisions. I said I would do right by people no matter what. So please, next time, watch the actual video instead of impugning my character.
@@IAmTimCorey was half way through it actually when I made the comment so your stance is a little more clear for sure I’ll say that. But still I feel like it’s the optics of it. It’s your channel and it has a lot of good c# content that I honestly respect but the wild fire that is the runtime issue is a issue on Unity that’s still changing it’s wise to keep an eye on it and wait until the Unity response for an in-depth response the explanation behind the confusion is what might turn ppl off respectfully. Not attacking you jus letting you know if I were as big as you are I’d have made a smaller video stating that we will wait and see you don’t have any plans as of yet but it is your channel. Like I guess I wouldn’t have fed into it is all I’m saying cause it’s a pending issue. But again it impacts us all so I get it.
I do want to point out the irony here - you hadn't completed watching the video before telling me that I shouldn't be hasty in responding to the Unity situation. 😆 As for why I chose to make the video I did when I did, while Unity has not come out with their updated plan based upon community feedback yet, my voice is a part of that feedback. Also, since I am creating Unity content (the Game Development Mastercourse), I wanted to let people know where I stood and why. Being patient can look a lot like complacency, apathy, or acceptance if you aren't careful. This channel is dedicated to teaching people software development. That means doing more than just teaching about if statements. It includes how to respond in situations like these and how to evaluate situations like these. That's why I did the size video I did and when I did. I did wait 6 days to respond in order to give a more measured response (and to include Unity's multiple "clarifications" around the announcement).
This channel is about learning to be a developer. That takes more than just quick blurbs. In this case, to really understand the situation, the implications, and evaluate what we should do, I felt that it took more than just "Unity was bad. We might need to abandon them. Let's not be hasty." to truly convey the information of the situation and teach people how to respond.
The only "justification" I can see is that they say every installation involves downloading the Unity runtime from their servers, so every installation costs them. However, I don't see that as a good enough reason to charge per install.
It's not about panic. It's about the trust that is completely lost and will not return unless the CEO steps down. Unity is most likely going to crash and burn w/o and putting any amount of faith in them any further is too risky. What ever your plans are it should be to move away from unity in the long term.
Just like Java was supposed to crash and burn after they updated their terms 🤔
Panic means making a move quickly rather than waiting for the whole story to unfold. Why do you need to move today instead of in a week? Can't you make that decision at the end of the month? Do you have to make it today? Maybe you make the same decision then, but you will have had time to hear them out and see the situation fully unfold rather than hastily making a decision. As @Refactorear pointed out, Java went through this and came out the other side.
But does Java have a history of upsetting its customers? I'm not part of that community, but I can tell you that I've been consistently upset by Unity. Enough is enough for some people, and if it's feasible to leave, then let them. I understand what you're saying about making a panic decision, but personally, I've had enough, and I'm in the group of people who won't have a hard time moving to something else. I've been playing around with MonoGame for a few years, so that's where I'll be.
My prediction is that Godot will now be catapulted into the position of being the Blender of Game Dev. It is going to take time though. I hope they expand their C# support and Docs - as a hobbyist I prefer using and supporting Open Source anyway.
Tim, great video - you've turned this into a learning opportunity. The reality is that, in tech, these things happen - tech changes, licences change etc. etc. and being able to make a calm, considered decision on how to react is an important skill for developers and those working in technology more generally, to master.
Funny that you would make the Blender comparison as Blender was considered a "toy" 3d application and only in the last 5+ years has it become a serious competitor to 3DSM and Maya. I haven't used Godot yet personally, but I get the sense that it's still in the same "toy" phase. Not quite ready for primetime, but I suspect it will get there eventually.
@@Tsunami14 yeah, that is exactly what I am thinking - Blender has shown that once freelance professionals start to take it seriously an open source option can hold its own, and even become the preferred option for many.
Thanks for sharing!
It's a shame that Blender can't be the Blender of game development.... It does still need a bit of a tidy, to be fair, but it's basically there.
@@pw.70 What do you mean by Blender can't be the Blender of game dev? :P Did you mean Godot?
Trust is the most important thing between business and business.
I learned about the company's situation while watching the Unity incident this time, but the company's financial situation seems to be too bad to continue to believe blindly.
I'm going to Unreal.
I don't know about Unity, but just looking at the company's financial situation, Epic Games, unlike Unity, is very likely not to go bankrupt in five years, or even 10 years.
Considering trust and stability, I think moving from Unity to Unreal is better for the future.
Just to be clear, Epic doesn't have a great track record as a company either. However, they do seem to be more solid than Unity at the moment. Just don't go in with rose-colored glasses.
Remember the Epic vs Apple thing that temporarily got Fortnite removed and Unreal products blocked on the Apple store? Maybe think of swinging those C# skills toward Godot instead of swapping to C++.
The real question is, how did we end up allowing companies to mass collect such amount of telemetry, if they are that confident to get actual real data about each installation of each game.
Most Users don't care about privacy or reading terms and conditions. I always think of the south park episode Human CentiPad
Some of this could be obvious telemetry. For example, they said that when a game installs, it pulls the runtime from Unity servers. That means they can capture every time their server gets hit. Now how they know which game is requesting that data is another story. At the end of the day, though, everything is spying on us to some extent. Siri/Alexa/etc. are listening to us even when we don't say their name (how else can they listen for their name). We use CDNs on our websites (which will tell third parties about our traffic). We capture Google Analytics for every website in order to understand visitor habits and improve our sites. The list goes on, unfortunately. The best we've been able to do to stop this type of thing is to make it anonymized and aggregated (thanks GDPR and others).
Thanks for the update on the situation with Unity. I am one of the "interested" with the Unity master course, but due to student loans coming in October and the merger in July with IronSource, I was hesitant and held off. I guess I will wait and see.
Yep, be patient. I'll keep you informed.
Great video Tim! Didn't expect less than that!
Thanks!
This also occurred with Identity Server, something beautiful and nice that was free and became paid… We had to start from scratch and create another identity server in our business because of this change
Which one?
A custom and internal! We call it Identity SSO and it’s almost a clone of Identity Server + some customization
I wonder how free games that show ads will be affected. Do they count the money from the ads.
I believe it does, but there are two things working in the favor of those apps. First, making $200,000 in ads in a year with ads in an app is a monumental task. Even if they hit that threshold, they could pay the $2,000 for a pro license and bump that limit up to $1 million. Second, Unity has their own ads system. They've already said that if you use their ads system, they will reduce the per installation fees for when you cross the threshold.
I think the problem was basing the payments on the installs, and not on the revenue. as you said, it could lead to situations where the fees eat into the profits and suddenly you owe unity more than you made.
I knew that tracking installations was something they couldn't accurately do, but I didn't know they also are unable to track profits (even from the big platforms). how does Unreal engine handle this? do they have a deal with steam to split the money?
edit: also, in my untrained opinion, that seems like insider trading. how is that legal?
There might have to be some self-reporting. Not sure. As for insider trading, it seems that way, especially since it is rumored that this was planned up to a year ago. However, the line on insider trading is a bit blurry so who knows.
I wonder if any of the management involved used to work at Wizards of the Coast.
😆 Maybe they all attend the same management school.
1:03:05 Please don't recommend "limited edition games". That kind of FOMO manipulation encourages piracy and you'll get an earful from internet archivists about artistic media preservation and anti-consumer practices. And just to clarify, I'm not talking about collector's edition/director's cut extras to a base game - I mean the game itself.
I hear you, but we do also need to work within the system. It isn't a great solution, though, even if it is an option.
I released a game on Unity a year ago. Suddenly I'm glad it did well, but not TOO well.
Congratulations. Releasing a game is a big deal. I'm hopeful that they will straighten this out and allow you to hope for success in the future.
Regarding the sale of 2,000 stock by Riccitiello at 47:20 - I don't see evidence of stock dumping. It's true he sold 2,000 shares at $40 - for all of $80,000 total. Meanwhile he retains 3,200,000 shares in the company, per his SEC filing for the sale. Looking back on his history he's sold shares pretty regularly with this year being remarkably few compared to the past. So I think he actually believes in the direction the company is taking with this asinine decision of theirs to at least prop up the stock value. Likely it would mean a revenue increase for unity in the short term. Long term however is a very different story in my view.
Stride 3D is a pretty great replacement. Made in C#, scripting is C#, and MIT license.
Thanks for sharing!
If it was possible for service provider to know for certain if the game copy was pirated or not, video-game piracy would be no longer a thing. Having this bold statement, which they have no way of backing, Unity just makes one of the main issues developers seem to be having with these new changes - trusting the company - even worse.
That would be amazing, right? Being able to stamp out piracy so easily would revolutionize the gaming industry.
Well, I kind of saw something like this coming. It takes just one CEO and a few people in power at the top to make changes that can affect or even kill a company. I experienced this in my previous job and had to leave because I couldn't bear to see the clients so upset. I decided to start my own company and completely rewrote the software. Fortunately for me I not developing a game but I did have eyes to use Unity for the app, I didn't, I used MAUI Blazor. I really dodged a bullet there.
We do face another problem. If everyone abandons Unity, it would leave Unreal Engine as the sole dominant player, giving them the power to do anything they want. We should also keep an eye on Unreal Engine's developments in the coming years.
You are correct. Options are really important to keep companies innovating. I'm hopeful Godot can continue to make positive strides as well, even if Unity survives this (I think they will). A third option would be really good.
@@IAmTimCorey Hey Tim, when you say you think Unity survives, what does that entail from your perspective?
As I see it, it can go two ways which are both HUGE losses for game developers:
1. Unity survives, and thus realizes they can get away with shady TOS changes, enforced internet tracking (spyware), unreliable pricing among other terrible things, leaving the already very unreliable CEO and executives in a powerful and honestly terrifying position over remaining Unity developers' future and dreams of developing games.
2. Enough people leave Unity and finds other engines to work in, leaving Unity as a tool and engine to "die" and become obsolete. It's a huge loss for the gaming industry as a whole, since Unity as a tool is both very fun and easy to learn and has (had) a huge community for support, which is already starting to fall apart.
I have a hard time seeing the light at the end of the tunnel as an upcoming developer.
* I did in fact leave Twitter almost a year ago, have not and will not go back.
A lot of people did, like I said. There was another big group, however, that left for a short amount of time.
Good video, usually i wait for things to blow over and then you realise they're not as dramatic as the initial wave of outcry makes out but this one i just can't get my head around it is genuinely baffling how they thought this was a good idea
Things are almost never as dramatic as they initially seem, but that doesn't mean they aren't bad. Hopefully, this situation gets a LOT better, because right now it is pretty bad.
Do you think this is going to have any notable impact on C# as a whole? Unity is one of the big names in the C# space, and often shows up in Microsoft's promotions. A massive turn against Unity feels like it might influence people's feelings about C#. And this is on top of the longer-term negative views about Microsoft, and their potential intentions to capture and control developers.
Good question. I don't think it will, but it isn't going to help. With Godot supporting C#, there is still a major engine using it (and now a popular one). But you never know. This might be bad enough to drag down the reputations of those around it.
Will this be the case with visual studio as well?
Nope. There is a completely different business model there.
@IAmTimCorey, What does this mean for your upcoming Game Development Mastercourse?
I answered that near the end. Right now, we are being patient, waiting for more information before making a long-term decision. No matter what, we will take care of people and do what we feel is best for everyone.
I have been working with unity for more than 6 years now, but i guess it is time to change to another engine. The trust is broken even when they step back from their decision. Thank you for the video.
You are welcome.
Great information Tim. Really helps put things into perspective.
You are welcome.
I really appreciate your honesty and transparency Tim, it would be easy to defend Unity given your recent investment into creating teaching resources for it. I think the takeaway of "think it over, don't make rash decisions" is a good one.
I know you said Godot doesn't have an established path to publishing, or monetisation model, but considering the lead time for developing a game (likely >2 years), would it be a reasonable bet to assume all of those things will be in place by then? Alternatively, would developing in Unity and then potentially porting to Godot further down the line be possible (given that they both support C#)?
Godot has been around almost as long as Unity has. It isn't a new platform. It has grown more slowly because of the funding, but now it is being fast-tracked because of the influx of interest. I don't know if they can get a good monetization model in place or not. I'm curious how that would work. Would they start charging a usage fee like Unity and Unreal do? Would the community rebel against that? That's the best option I can see, but it is also the one that is the most fraught with danger.
Developing a game in Unity in order to port it isn't a great idea. However, learning Unity and building games in it in order to improve your game development skills with the idea that you may move to Godot in the future is a great idea. The hardest part of game development is the skills that come with experience - scoping, making it fun, incorporating feedback, etc. Those aren't engine-specific.
@@IAmTimCorey this is true. I've decided to push on with it, accepting the longer term risks. Btw, I've been following a Unity course in Udemy ("Complete C# Unity Game Developer 3D"), but it's quite a bit out of date. It's taken me ages to figure out how to create a follow camera as the course shows how to do it in Unity 2020, and I'm using Unity 2022.
Long story short, I'm keeping an eye out for your mastercourse!
What now, I'll tell you what now. 20k lines of code to convert to c++ for UE5.
If I remember correctly there was once some talks about adding the supporting of C# in UE. It seems that they didn't accomplish that in the end?
@@AnaRxistBoDnot that I know of. Pretty easy to convert code though, just takes time.
@@AnaRxistBoDI have a few years of working with BP in UE, just need to learn UE c++
Good luck.
After all the support Microsoft gave to unity it's very sad to see something like this happening. It was already part of visual studio starting screen and one of the biggest references about the use of C#, this not only harm unity itself but also the C# ecosystem and maybe even Microsoft since it was one of the "trusted partners".
Was excited to try some unity programming on my free time but now...
I would say that it is still a good way to develop games in your free time, especially for a hobby.
It’s not about the price anymore, it’s about sending a message. They tried to force the issue, and slip crap past the radar. Now, they’re paying for it. No terms, even the most favorable, is or should be accepted without community and customer input.
By this logic, though, you couldn't work with anyone. All companies change the terms over time and they don't always consult with their communities or customers. This particular one was egregious, but it isn't unique to Unity. Google, for example, has killed dozens of services over the years without user feedback (or against it). For example, they recently started doing domain name registration then, more recently, they sold that off to a company that will charge double for domain name renewals (after the first year). Should we then not ever trust Google? I think the answer is that we need to learn from the situation and be more cautious, but we also have to make the best choice for the situation. I still use some Google services, even though I do not trust Google not to kill services, because it is still the best option for certain situations. I may use Unity in the future because it is the best choice for a given situation, even if I don't trust them. If I sent a message to every company that "crossed" me, I'd be doing nothing but sending messages. We can't compound a bad situation by shooting ourselves in the foot.
@@IAmTimCorey You’re completely right, it was poor wording on my part. What I intended to communicate was that any future contracts or agreements *with Unity* rather than the entire market, in particular because language in a previous ToS from Unity implies this sort of across the board change would not occur. That in particular, I believe, goes against the whole concept of good faith contracts, which is what facilitates contracts in the first place. When we know a particular company is willing to act in bad faith, it’s not reasonable to expect good faith in the future without direct negotiation and legally binding contracts. As the saying goes, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Very true. They definitely need to put together a solid legal document that, going forward, protects the developers as well as themselves (not just themselves).
excellent breakdown. As soon as a company wants to enter and "float" on the stockmarket, you get the board and directors (usually new to the company) who come in..tell lies about "we will not change anything", who will actively from day one look to maximise the profit of the company for the shareholders. They simply do not care about which company they are in charge of, unity could be a teabag making company, they will do the same process.
The insider trading (or so it seems) is another of their plays. sell the stock, trash the company, rebuy the useless stock... its a game.
meanwhile the company will crash, the software IP and source will be sold to others, the board and ceo will simply side step into another company and do the same stuff (and sing how great they were for the stockholders)
i find it so disheartening to see the hard work of the unity staff and their excellent product be ripped apart like this.
It is all disheartening, for sure.
I appreciate the level-headed approach to these events rather than going for the click bait sensationalist approach. Thanks for going through this
You are welcome.
I am just waiting to short Unity’s stocks. Have been observing for the past few days, not much have changed, why?
Two reasons: first, people are waiting to see what Unity actually does. Second, Unity makes its money on ads right now, not on the platform. So if tons of people leave the platform (and most aren't paying much of anything right now), but the big players stay and start paying something now beyond what they were, the end result could be an increase in income with a decrease in costs.
Hey Tim, you might think about making a follow-up video of what to do to survive and thrive if Unity doesn't back pedal their decisions.
A follow-up video is coming once Unity makes it clear what they will be doing going forward. Then we will discuss how to move forward from here (or at least the various options for moving forward depending on your circumstance).
TBH I think panicking and outrage was warranted here. Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal and its easily noticeable. People are getting tired of fees... every corporation is tacking on fees, they're popping up everywhere (the BMW seat warming fiasco comes to mind) and to be honest in this case I think the outrage was helpful because it makes the idea of something like this a scary proposition to even try in the future, if the public had quietly swallowed this or had a calm reaction to it. Unreal would been like maybe we can do this too, then Gamemaker, then Microsoft, this practice could have taken hold across the industry and possibly into others. Enough is enough...
There's a difference between outrage and panic. Outrage says "we aren't going to take this". Panic says "I'm going to make a snap decision that will have a major financial impact on my life that I don't even really understand yet." I'm outraged over the pricing model. That's one of the reasons I created this video. But just because I'm outraged doesn't mean I need to make a decision right this instant. I can let the situation develop a bit before making a choice. I can go into that choice with my eyes wide open as well.
@@IAmTimCorey Of course, but to be fair that's exactly what Unity did they made a snap decision and made it retroactive. Their initial line of thinking is too telling to a lot of devs. It's also important to note that the dev's didn't just panic, Unity created the panic, and did nothing to quell it for days. Personally, I'm glad some people panicked and decided to switch, as not every decision has to involve financials. I wish more people/companies thought this way. In fact, only thinking about financials is exactly what caused this. A message needed to be sent across the industry, and not a calm, measured, wait and see, message.
That being said, there's nothing wrong with being calm if that's how you wish to act, but in this case there's also nothing wrong with taking a risk to punish bad/greedy corporate behavior especially since there are alternatives to unity.
First, trying to argue that we should make snap decisions because Unity did isn't a great argument. Second, that's not what Unity did. Insiders have said that these pricing changes have been worked on since January. Just because they aren't good choices doesn't mean they didn't take their time on them. As for taking a risk to punish a company, that is unwise. Don't risk going out of business in order to "punish" someone else who probably won't even notice.
@@IAmTimCorey You're missing the point man. Yes, Unity may have been working on these changes for a while, but they kept this knowledge from the majority of their userbase, save a few insiders who couldn't/wouldn't talk about it. So, from a user perspective It's a snap decision made by a Unity that would have taken effect not next year not in 2025 but in a couple of months. And to its users this perception is their reality i.e., a snap decision on unity's part.
Secondly the snap decision on unity dev's to bail didn't happen in a vacuum, it happened for the reasons above, I don't think the risk to jump ship was unwise. Is it unwise to swat a mosquito that landed on your arm, or should you wait calmly to see if it will drink first, because there's a risk that a hard swat might hurt your arm for a little while.
The risk wasn't unwise, and unity certainly noticed the backlash, and so did all of the other companies. Yes, there's a time for calm action. This just wasn't one of those times.
A snap decision would have been immediate. We had 4 months notice. What you are advocating for is making a decision in hours or maybe a day or two when you have up to four months to make that call. That is unwise. Now that Unity has come out with a really rock-solid solution that addresses practically every concern (including putting legal language in place that prevents them from doing this again), a lot of companies/developers are deciding to come back to Unity. They made big, public statements about how they would never use Unity again and now they are using Unity again. Others made big, public statements and feel like they can't go back on what they said even if they want to. There was a way to let Unity know this is unacceptable while at the same time not risking your future.
As for your mosquito reference, that's not a good analogy. Unity didn't make any immediate changes. They made changes that would have gone into effect four months in the future. If a mosquito lands on your arm and a 1-hour countdown clock starts before they will bite you, you don't have to flail your arms, knock over your drink, and fall out of your chair trying to kill it. You can calmly evaluate the situation and identify how best to deal with it. On a construction site, if a worker gets a nail embedded in their hand, the solution isn't to yank it out even though it shouldn't be there and it is an emergency. The solution is to go to the hospital and have it removed. The doctors too will not just yank it out. They will plan carefully how to remove it. The reason why is because you can do more harm by being hasty. A lot of developers are learning this lesson first-hand this week.
You should look at what indie studios are saying about how unity is approaching them offering 80 percent off installs if they switch their add sense to use theirs
I have and while I didn't take the time to cover that in this video, that's not a great look either.
Unity should pay you for making lecture about their pricing policy xD
If pricing table is not clear or full of traps then you should use product made by other company.
I think they will make the pricing more clear. They didn't really understand what they were doing when they made it. However, I'm not confident that the clarity will make things better.
The shady story with upper management selling their shares not long ago makes me feel especially bad about this
~CoNsPiRaCiEs~
@@malokegames business
Dirty Business. @@Satanski666
@@malokegames Lol, Dude, there are like dozens of articles proving Riccitiello sold his shares. Don't be a simp.
@@ericestenofo7502 I didn't say he didn't. But rather your limited interpretation of it.
As someone who has developed and released a mobile game with Unity, I will no longer be using Unity unless this changes. I will switch to Unreal Engine. It’s unfortunate too because Unity is a great platform
Bummer.
Also remember this is $200k revenue in the LAST 12 MONTGS.
You can also make $100k every year for many years on your game and not be charged anything. This means your game can earn well over 200k in revenue and still not be eligible to be charged
For sure. I did cover that in the video.
Microsoft should just buy Unity and fire all the management at Unity because this can hurt C# reputation as well.
That might be good, but I'm also concerned that since Unity isn't in Microsoft's core business model, it might not get the resources it needed to succeed.
Absolutely I'd say don't panic. I think as you alluded to, it's practically impossible to walk it back and for people believe them because they've proven themselves an untrustworthy company without new leadership. The sequence of unethical decisions at the top just can't be rectified any other way in my mind. I think as you said Tim with don't panic, that probably means planning subsequent courses in another engine, potentially you can an add-on for your Unity course with a guide to change engine.
We will see, based upon Unity's follow-up response and changes.
@@IAmTimCorey please share your thoughts about stride game engine it can be good alternative for unity
but i'm not sure about its performance as you know godot's 3d performance is no where near to unity's one
if thats the case with stride game engine then it doesnt make any sense to use it...
Freemium games/apps cannot afford a flat fee per install. It doesn't matter if you get $200k or $1 million, you can end up being taxed more than you actually earn. Many companies that follow this business model will go bankrupt. If Unity insists on this terrible idea, they should at least include a cap for freemium.
The cap on how much you would pay is a possible solution that could make this situation much better. It would be tricky to get right, though.
I'm all for the company providing the tool to build your game getting some of the profit once the developer is profiting. But it needs to be on a real metric, copies sold. Games get sold once not every time someone installs them, why should it be different for the tools? They should also think about a percentage of the profit up to a set amount. That way devs won't just increase the price of their games. And it needs to be after the cost of store fees are taken because those are crazy high and already cut the profits. Trying to make more money in this way isn't going to work, they will lose the developers before increasing income, and the existing model was the rules they set with us beforehand to increase the number of devs using the platform, they could have stayed with the pay to use model, not the free until you profit model.
I would be interested in seeing Godot tutorials and having a section in the Master Course using Godot just to cover other options.
I think that a capped fee would be good, although it would be hard to implement well. As for this move in particular, it might be that they don't care that they will lose developers. They are going to lose the indie developers mostly, not necessarily the big players (at least in the short term). If that's the case, they will lose the people who never paid them anyway and get lots more income from the existing games on the platform. For example, I don't believe Blizzard pays anything to Unity for Hearthstone at this point. If even just that game started paying for installations (even at the greatly reduced Enterprise rate), that would be a big income surge for Unity.
it's a non-issue to me... why are people freaking out that one of the most positively impactful projects to game development is finally trying to get its dues in terms of compensation from the developers that exploit it. it's the people that have been offering Unity games for (almost) free that need to justify themselves.
Unity is probably going to need any monetary compensation it can get to compete with Unreal Engine... that's what I'm most concerned with... it's risk of being rendered irrelevant entirely by its main competition.
It isn't about Unity wanting compensation. If they had approached it correctly, this would have been mostly a non-issue. The issue was how they broke trust. They used to have terms that said that new pricing structures would only happen with new LTS releases. They quietly deleted those terms and said the new pricing would apply to all games going forward regardless of LTS used. They also put out a fee structure that was uncertain. Devs had no way of knowing what they would be charged or how much of their income to set aside. In the worst cases, the pricing structure would have taken more money than the developers made. That is a big deal.
As someone who is new to game development and considering making a game(haven't started), I think I'll just start somewhere else where there is more trust like Godot or Unreal.
Thanks for sharing!
are u game dev ? which engine u use
I am, and I'm also teaching a course on game development. I use Unity because I can reuse my C# skills to build games. I love being able to reuse my skills.
@@IAmTimCorey do you have game on app store or steam
No, not yet. I probably will, but for now I've only developed them for myself for fun. I haven't really found a polished idea that I like that I also think is something others would like. Game development is only minorly about the technical side (programming, graphic design, music, etc.) It is more about developing a compelling concept that is interesting, engaging, and with a compelling story. That's the really hard part. No one really wants another generic RPG. I've got some ideas, and I'm working on distilling them to their core and tweaking them until I come up with something that I think people will really enjoy. Then I'll spend the time to create it. They probably won't be what you would expect, though. One of the concepts I'm working on right now is influenced by the word-creation game Bookworm from PopCap (it no longer exists). That was a blast, but the clones and competitors just don't have that same energy. I'm working through why and what would be fun. I've got some fun multiplayer ideas, but I want to nail the core gameplay loop for single player first.
@@IAmTimCorey do you use Godot for smaller / 2D simple games ? Unity seem heavy for simple games
I think it's a mix of reasons, Unity not being recognized as the engine of cheap free to play games with unethical practices and poor quantity click baits. Force developers to upgrade to higher tiers instead of using the personal version forever. Hopefully these changes will allow Unity to get better rep for gamers and be known for better produced games for the gamers in the future. How many other gamers cringe when they download a game and see the made with unity splash screen?
That is a good question. The stigma of Unity might be as bad as the actual issue.
Thank you for keeping up with all these industry changes!
You are welcome.
At best, this seems like extremely severe mismanagement at the helm of someone who is a sociopath, and at worse, a pump and dump (or at least attempted).
It was definitely mismanagement. It wasn't a pump and dump because this type of move has the opposite effect.
Don't forget that $200,000 is gross not net, which means how much you get before you have paid the bills. Oops! You now said that. Lol Serve myself right for not watching to the end before commenting.
👍
Unity really screwed up here. I disagree with their decision, but here's my alternative solution:
Use Unity, as usual, but publish your games only in cloud gaming services, where the installation count is likely not going to exceed their threshold, and you can still reach (potentially) unlimited users.
That was one of the options I proposed.
I was listening in background and must've missed it. But it is an interesting idea. I also liked your idea of a limited number of keys or sales. @@IAmTimCorey
Well, you can try to trick them by limiting your game sales, but what if they change or even completely lift their free of charge limits in a year, two or five years? As Tim said, i wouldn't panic, but i think it's time to move to UE, if not just right now, then when circumstances are more favourable.
That lack of trust is a problem, isn't it. Hopefully they can address it.
Unity can regain trust only if they open source Unity under MIT. They can keep asset store earnings to survive as a company.
I don't see how that relates at all to the situation. The issue is the licensing. They need to fix that. Making them turn Unity into an OSS project under MIT is basically saying "turn over all of your hard work to us for free and hope that we don't just fork the repo and cut you out entirely". That's not a business model that makes sense. Unity has the right to have a proprietary, closed-source engine. Microsoft Office isn't open source. Neither is Windows, MacOS, or the TH-cam source code. Just because code is closed-source doesn't mean it can't be good.
@@IAmTimCorey I know, just saying that situation in community looks so bad, that appears the only way for Unity as a software to survive is to go open source. I don't see them around in 10 years or so, but that is just my opinion
Sorry Tim that this sh*tshow hit you just in time for your Unity course. Hopefully the sales will be at least satisfactory.
It is fine. It gave me a good opportunity to talk through how to deal with situations like this. Plus, they ended up fixing most things in the end.
Until Jon Riccitiello resigns, I don't care for Unity.
I can understand that.
This is not great change if we think your new Unity course. Yes Unity keeps updating, but not so great choice anymore.
It doesn't look good, but also remember that we aren't making a choice in a vacuum. Right now, there are three big options: Unity, Godot, and Unreal. Godot isn't ready yet and Unreal is more complex and uses C++. So neither of those is a good option. That means that even though Unity isn't a great option either, it might still be the best option. We will see.
@@IAmTimCorey yes. I am still interested of Unity. For example it is used with ml-agents AI library and O could also practice my C# skills with Unity. Your course is still interesting for me. Hobby projects is my target with Unity.
Another thing ... if you google the revenu of unity last year ... they had earned 1.4 Billion last year of revenu ... not income. Revenu ... an increase from 1.1 Billion the year before -.- So yeah no they did not need to make more money so despartly that they had to break the trust of every single developer on their platform.
Just to be clear, revenue doesn't equal profits. Revenue is gross sales. Income is net income (total earnings or profits after expenses are deducted from revenue). A restaurant can make $1,000,000 in revenue for the year but only have $10,000 in net income (actually, that's a scarily accurate scenario for a lot of restaurants). In Unity's case, they only made a profit (having a net income above $0) in the 4th quarter last year. The other three quarters, they lost money. The real key is that Unity is an ad company that also makes a game engine. The ads are where they make their money, and Apple has strangled their income on that side (which is why they merged with ironSource and laid off their existing ad staff).
@@IAmTimCorey You are right -.- its one of the trappings of the langue it is amazing that this company that is so engrained in game development has apparently never made signficant profit ... so there must be a revenu stream that they are not disclosing under the normal income (like investors) for them to be able to cotntinue to operate. Still doesnt explains why they are so willing to shoot themself in the foot with this payment sceme. Because i cant see any way how that would be a successful way to tax the costomers more.
I understand what you're saying about not acting in a rush, but this is only the beggining, the CEO will not rest until he gets the return for his investors he got for EA tru lootboxes!!!
Here is why you shouldn't act in a rush: what if the board makes the CEO resign? What if they roll back the changes and put a license agreement in place that won't allow them to bring them back?
Even if nothing changes, though, you still shouldn't rush. Remember, you aren't just jumping out of something. You are jumping into something new. So where are you jumping to? Are you jumping to Godot? Did you know that it will require you to either build or purchase a LOT of what you got for "free" with Unity? Did you know it isn't really ready for a lot of scenarios, including publishing to consoles? Or are you jumping to Unreal? Have you seen their company's track record (it definitely isn't all sunshine and roses)? Are you prepared to switch languages? Are you prepared to pay a 5% royalty on all games?
Evaluating a situation as "good" or "bad" isn't the way to make a good decision. There are LOTS of situations where we evaluate something as "bad", but it is still the best choice. Microsoft has made some bad choices in the past. So has Apple, Google, and most other big companies we rely on. We still use them because there is not a better alternative. The way to make good decisions is to evaluate your options in light of the new information. You might find that the best option for you is to stick with the company that is making a bad decision. If you just act in a rush, you will leave the best situation for you and end up hurting yourself worse.
@@IAmTimCorey That's a very well written and convincing argument, I appreciate that, but neither Google nor Microsoft are the Vultures that EA became under this person's direction, and Shareholders have no reason to fire him if he does end up delivering the money, with the 2 or 3 big Titles like Genshin Impact, that will be way more than what's lost in indie developers and small companies...
Ultimately, it may or may not be better to jump out of the slowly boiling water, and if enough people do, other projects may benefit and become more competitive with Unity!
That's for each one to decide for themselves.
I'm not saying you can't decide that leaving is the best choice. It may be. What I'm saying is that rushing to that conclusion isn't wise. If you evaluate the entire situation and decide that is the right move for you, that's great. If you rush to do so, you may realize later that you missed a key variable that has hurt you long-term. For instance, if you are a console developer and you had a game that was halfway done and you decided quickly to leave Unity, then what? You would need to go to Unreal (Godot isn't an option for console). That means porting over to C++ as well as to the new editor. That is going to delay your game significantly. That might mean you run out of money before the development is done. The end result is that you lose money and don't have a finished game instead of having a game on a platform that you don't necessarily like or agree with their leadership.
The news just broke that the CEO (and chairman of the board of directors) has stepped down effective immediately. Since your original statement about the CEO not resting until he turns Unity into EA, does this change your mind now?
@@IAmTimCorey It does! It changes my mind towards the short term direction of Unity and hopefully a more competent person will be put in the position, still, I hope you realize this only happened because so many people spoke out with substantiated threats of leaving Unity, only with those LOUD threats of taking business elsewhere is that some amount of changes were achieved.
Still, it would be best to have some other alternative than having yet another industry monopolize like we have so many!
I still hope some people take the jump, and give us more sustainable options, if there truly are NO GOOD OPTIONS but Unity then long run we are screwed anyway aren't we?
Remove the word ‘Unity’ and this is just good advice for indie developers.
That was the goal - to use the Unity situation to give good overall advice while allowing us to practice it right away through this situation.
I have SMALL SSDs and VERY GOOD FIBER INTERNET.
I can download/re-Install a game in SECONDS. I won't stop doing it. (and f... forced telemetry)
Yep, understandable.
So, if one does not like the game company.... Just buy it once, and script an installer for it... Then deply to a multiple of VM's... 🤦 This change is really stupid...
Also, they will look at change of hardware? Not sure this will even be allowed according to gdpr rules in the EU... Alot of things here that most likely will be illegal in atleast Norway(i.e. tracking) from what I see in their changes.. 🤔
And the "pray i won't change it further"... Is a problem no matter what they do now... Even if they back-peddal on the change, what will stop them from doing it anyways, lets say ... next year? 😞
Looks like there's been some back pedaling already
@rjean99 As expected, but only way they would be able to rectify this, would be to go more or less back, and even include it in contacts that they would not do anything like this for the next foreseeable future. But I got my doubts it would be enough tbh..
Yeah, I think a set-in-stone license agreement is important going forward.
What an exciting time this must be for Godot.
I'm sure, but I'm also sure that it is a scary time too. Having that big of an influx of users can be overwhelming.
thats why I never learned Unity, instead I focused on Godot.
I didnt like dealing with Unreal or Unity's licensing
The concern I have is that Godot doesn't have a great income strategy. It is fine for now, but relying on donations is not a long-term income model that typically makes sense. So, down the road when it is more successful and the project is relied on by many more companies, what will they choose to do?
@@IAmTimCorey I think Unreal is better for most companies. But for indie devs Godot is better. Kinda like Blender vs Maya. Maya will always be better for large companies. Because it has better tech support.
Tbh, i dont agree with Unity and i postpone my plan to create digital twin of a factory using unity. But, the CEO idea about charging for every reload has been use in small game like cooking game. To proceed to next level, player need to wait for some time to get thunder or pay some dolar to get free thunder. I mean, in busines perspective, its profitable.
I also hate when he said about gamer is an I****T if they dont make money from gaming. This dude definetly have some high end hobby, and definetly not gaming :D
Thanks for sharing!
They really screwed you over, didnt they tim? Your course just started and they come out with this clownjob. Instead you should make a short tutorial on youtube bots or something, i doubt you personally respond to all those comments haha. Also what they say is irrelevant right now, they have proven themselves to be a unreliable partner, having stable and reliable partners matter more than their backtracking and apologies.
Yep, I do personally respond to all of these comments. I've never used a TH-cam bot (not sure if there is one for leaving comments automatically). As for Unity, yes, they have really damaged their reputation. Hopefully they can come up with a good solution.
He didn't call gamers "f-ing idiots". Your lack of basic work researching any of this is depressing. He called developers "f-ing idiots", but he was talking about developers who want to add microtransactions, that don't add them right away and build their game around it -> those are the "f-ing idiots" because the game will suffer if the microtransactions are added too late in development. And of course everyone takes it out of context and just says he was insulting all devs who don't monetize their game. His statement was incredibly poorly worded, but he just wasn't saying that. Also, ironSource had people delivering Malware through their ads. That happens with ALL AD services. It happened with Google Ads in TH-cam. That doesn't make the company a Malware company, or the authors of the Malware. People of course just misrepresented it and called them a malicious company. People are stupid...
Yes, game developers. Sorry I misspoke. However, that's not out of context. Yes, he was saying that game devs that don't build monetization into their games early in the design process are f-ing idiots. Not everyone has the same goals as he seems to. As for ironSource, that's not the whole story. They created an application that distributed malware. The fact that their company did not directly create that malware isn't really the issue. Their application allowed it to the point where Malwarebytes and Windows Defender had to shut it down. They ended up abandoning that application (according to them). No, that is not what "all ad services" do or how they all work. Otherwise, there would not be any ad services.
This is unrelated but knowing u got steam is awesome and we need to play some apex😂😂
Maybe I should do a Steam library reveal sometime. I actually don't play Apex, but I have a lot of great games in it.
@IAmTimCorey awesome that would be 👍 .
1:13:30, Unity should learn from you.
It is a sentiment that I wished more businesses had. For my part, since I'm in a position to be one of those businesses, I work to treat my customers the way I would want businesses to treat me.
Not only Unity I think all the companies should. Unfortunately less people and companies are about building this long term trust and relationships with the community like @Tim rather generate insane profits quickly. What are my thought about the situation.
1) it’s really bad
2) People at the top of the foodchain in unity should not be at their position and maybe even held responsible for their actions - if the actions were legal I think they were a bit sketchy.
3) I would like to see in that kind of positions true passionate gamers.
4) Civ 6 and Portal 2 awesome games ❤❤.
5) If the official statement of what I understand - it is a black box - I am very worried what information are they gathering and why? And how else are they going to use them. Especially after hearing that they merged with the company that was specialized in malware.
6) I will wait for more information from Tim and unity. As I was also interested in buying the pre-order but due to some issues after a very long discussions I decided not to.
While i will not quit unity until we get some reasonable alternative with c#, I am really flabbergasted by this move from unity.
Just based on this "installs" metric means there was not a single engineer or technically savy person involved in the decision making process.
Apart from that they could easily just introduce a flat 1% revenue share above 200k revenue, starting with their new ai powered versions in conjuncture with the license tiers and people would be more than happy with it and bet they would even make more money from that long term.
Instead they deciced for a pricing system which seems just convoluted and uselessly complicated - like they never heard of the guideline to make pricing simple and fair.
One theory is that they don't care to make it fair for indie devs because they don't care if they stick around. Indie devs don't give them any money, but they consume resources from them (per installation download of the runtime, for instance). Right now, if they can get the big players to pay them something for the games already in the store (like Hearthstone), they stand to make a big profit and reduce the amount of free people using their resources. That is incredibly short-sighted thinking, but it is a theory as to why they went ahead with this anyway. They knew it wasn't going to be popular. While they may be greedy, I don't necessarily think they are just dumb. Even if they are wrong, they have an idea on how to make this work financially for them.
While I get the this logic, I don't think that the likes of Hearthstone roll over and hand them more money than some proper lawyers cost to fight them in court about retroactive TOS changes.
Two little things to the points in your video:
-I dont think anyone will ever pay 20c per install, everyone who approches 200k in revenue would simply upgrade to Pro version and have a way higher limit on everything.
-CEO's selling stock is strongly regulated and they sell stock all the time, as they are at least partly paid in stock it to give incentives for long term growth. The unity CEO still has by far more stock in Unity than he sold, so crashing unity would be very much against his interest.@@IAmTimCorey
1) Agreed. I think they just need to make that the planned step. Forget saying $0.20/install and just say that after you make $200,000, you need to pay for pro.
2) This wasn't just the CEO. It was the board, too, to the tune of over $4 million. I don't think they are intending to crash the stock. I think they were looking to make a little profit off of the crisis.
Come on now Tim, the Moq developer didn't ask, he took it.
Took what? Your money? No. The tool was going to prompt you to donate as a warning on build if you were in the editor. You didn’t have to donate.
@@IAmTimCorey No. Not my money. Just my email from my git folder in a sleazy way. And I have no problem with dude charging money for his project, at all. A bunch of successful companies use his tool, helping then make millions, I think is reasonable that he should get something for his work! I just don't think doing it the way he did was honest. For me, Open Source isn't about free stuff, but honest OPEN stuff, hence the name.
@@failscript100%
I was talking about money when I mentioned Moq, which was the confusion. No, he didn’t ask before using your email address. He walked that back. However, I do think you are being overly harsh. He wasn’t capturing your email address, he was using the email address you use publicly on every commit. I’m not saying that was right to do, but in our frustration, we shouldn’t overblow the situation.
@@IAmTimCorey You're right, it is a public email address used in every commit, but it could totally be something else he was reaching for in that obfuscated dependency! I don't think stating that he should have been upfront with his intentions is being harsh.
Honestly, I am kinda of new but whatever happens I will go with any engine except unity.
Good to know.
Have the Unity guys been reading the Microsoft Book of Jokes again??
Riccitello = Bolsonaro of the gaming world.
😆
Switch engines. They arent sorry. Its way past time to teach big tech what it means to be harmful to its customers.
It will only get worse.
I hope not. Would you still feel the same way if the CEO was removed, new leadership came in, the changes were rolled back, and the company were to commit to a better direction? It has happened before (not that I'm expecting that to happen here).
easter egg in unity...
when gameaInstallation ends
counter++ 😂😂😂
rest api call -> our server and update our counter column 😅
ps. I am joking (maybe not)
Hopefully this practice ends.
@@IAmTimCorey aside this charging practice that is almost illegal due to the fact that you have to certify the number of installations, gamers should pay the service but only once per account and not pay a fee per installation. We are close to another event, live service videogames where no-pc-gamer is paying a monthly fee to maintain a platform or a server when these stuff costs a lot and with the rise of the bills now they cost more than ever.... I am expecting something too on that side.
this why we can't have nice things
Hopefully they salvage the situation somewhat.
@@IAmTimCorey as you said it's going to take a lot from them but nothing less of firing the executives with everyone that approves this and full reverse
but honestly i don't see any of this happening
and i was setting here thinking that microsoft bought them at the same time as xamarin boy weren't i wrong
@@IAmTimCorey the ceo is down
@iamtimcorey you might wanna walk this video back Brah I watch all you’d videos but this one you might wanna take a back seat on I know your defending this cause you got a course coming out but this hurts us all.
Did you actually watch the video? This isn’t a defense of Unity. I said this situation is bad and that Unity has destroyed trust with this move. That’s not a pro-Unity stance. As for me selling a course on Unity, I covered that too. I said we aren’t going to be reactionary, but let this play out a bit before making any decisions. I said I would do right by people no matter what. So please, next time, watch the actual video instead of impugning my character.
@@IAmTimCorey was half way through it actually when I made the comment so your stance is a little more clear for sure I’ll say that. But still I feel like it’s the optics of it. It’s your channel and it has a lot of good c# content that I honestly respect but the wild fire that is the runtime issue is a issue on Unity that’s still changing it’s wise to keep an eye on it and wait until the Unity response for an in-depth response the explanation behind the confusion is what might turn ppl off respectfully. Not attacking you jus letting you know if I were as big as you are I’d have made a smaller video stating that we will wait and see you don’t have any plans as of yet but it is your channel. Like I guess I wouldn’t have fed into it is all I’m saying cause it’s a pending issue. But again it impacts us all so I get it.
I do want to point out the irony here - you hadn't completed watching the video before telling me that I shouldn't be hasty in responding to the Unity situation. 😆 As for why I chose to make the video I did when I did, while Unity has not come out with their updated plan based upon community feedback yet, my voice is a part of that feedback. Also, since I am creating Unity content (the Game Development Mastercourse), I wanted to let people know where I stood and why. Being patient can look a lot like complacency, apathy, or acceptance if you aren't careful.
This channel is dedicated to teaching people software development. That means doing more than just teaching about if statements. It includes how to respond in situations like these and how to evaluate situations like these. That's why I did the size video I did and when I did. I did wait 6 days to respond in order to give a more measured response (and to include Unity's multiple "clarifications" around the announcement).
Video is too long.
Use AI to summarise. I dit it and it made a 5 minutes summary!
This channel is about learning to be a developer. That takes more than just quick blurbs. In this case, to really understand the situation, the implications, and evaluate what we should do, I felt that it took more than just "Unity was bad. We might need to abandon them. Let's not be hasty." to truly convey the information of the situation and teach people how to respond.
First
👋
Charging by installation instead of purchases is impossible to justify by anything else than extreme greed.
The only "justification" I can see is that they say every installation involves downloading the Unity runtime from their servers, so every installation costs them. However, I don't see that as a good enough reason to charge per install.
@@IAmTimCorey Oh, I wasn't aware of that. But I agree, it's still not a good argument.