• tabular@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    159
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    “We apologize for the confusion (…)”

    We thought removing the git repository that tracked terms of service would make it clear.

  • TurnItOff_OnAgain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    96
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    They are implementing the “Anchor High” plan.

    1. Come out with a ridiculously high number
    2. Take the back lash
    3. Issue an apology, claim you are “listing to the team, partners, etc” <---- We are here
    4. Release a “revised” plan, which is really what you wanted all along
    5. Profit (quite literally)

    I’m willing to bet they are angling for an acquisition, and trying to bump up their value to get a higher number.

    • TsarVul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      2 years ago

      Precisely what I’m talking about. They can afford to do so, since they lost the trust of the user about 2 statements from the CEO ago.

      And not to go too deep into it, but how the hell are you going to create a brand new pricing scheme in only “a couple of days”, without already having a draft of it ready? Don’t you wanna check in with your lawyer? Your CFO? This shit must take more than 2 days to do.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        I don’t think they checked with their lawyer before releasing the first one (that had some pretty obviously legally dubious provisions). Why would they start asking the legal team now?

      • Zron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        This is the part they’re missing: apple actually care about the appearance of quality.

        I’m not saying apple makes quality products, there’s some good debate there that they really don’t. But they certainly foster the belief that apple products are superior in quality to their competitors.

        Unity is a great engine when it’s used well, but it doesn’t have a reputation for quality. It has a Reputation that says “anyone can publish a bolted together asset flip and make a quick buck off of twitter hype”

        I doubt apple would acquire unity based purely on the fact that unity does not adhere to apple’s ideals on branding. Apple tends to buy rights from young companies that don’t have large established brands yet, because it’s easier to fold them into the cult of apple. An established brand with a known reputation would be a tough sell, especially when Apple has the resources to simply make their own product that’s tailored to their hardware.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 years ago

        No, because the entire industry and most of their customers are still pissed off enough at them that it’s still going to have very serious long term effects.

  • TsarVul@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    2 years ago

    We apologize for the confusion and angst the runtime fee policy we announced on Tuesday caused. We are listening, talking to our team members, community, customers, and partners, and will be making changes to the policy. We will share an update in a couple of days. Thank you for your honest and critical feedback.

    Allow me to translate:

    We’re now publishing the terms that we were actually going for from the very beginning. We’ve always known that the flaming bag of shit that we laid on your doorstep was unreasonable. If it worked, it worked, but if it didn’t, it can stand in contrast to the new less shit terms that you’re either supposed to agree to or rewrite your whole game. Not like our PR was great before this gambit. What have we to lose?

    • Chariotwheel@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 years ago

      I mean, they have a lot to lose. There are strong alternatives. Unreal and Godot are at the doorstep. Godot doesn’t take anything at all, Unreal takes, but in a reasonable manner and it’s of course on 3D a lot more powerful and also offers an asset store.

      The games already developed and deep into development are unlikely to jump, but future games will have a huge argument against Unity now. Unreal could completely snap their necks now by putting into writing that they never do such move.

    • El Barto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 years ago

      Correct. The right course of action would be to backtrack this per download idea completely, fire the person who thought of this, and add a clause on their ToS that such bullshit will never happen again, and that of they broke that agreement, they will refund everyone affected by it.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    2 years ago

    That’s not an apology.

    And if we’re talking about apologies and corrective action: the only real way forward is a completely fresh executive team at Unity. Anything short of that means they’re simply going to try this all again in a slightly different fashion once focus on their clusterfuck dies down.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    They went for a retroactive pricing change.

    Imagine that you start a game project (which will cost you years and a lot of $$$ to develop) and at any point Unity just arbitrarilly changes the conditions (which can be of any kind, not just extra charges) that apply to your game, after you’re too far into development to feasibly replace Unity, and do it retroactivelly, so after your game is already out it can still get impacted by it.

    Suddenly a totally viable project might become unviable or, worse, an active drain on your company’s finances or even your own (i.e. your company and, depending on how you structured it, even you yourself can go bankrupt), and all of that based on the fickle wishes of a higher up in Unity.

    At this point it makes no business sense whatsoever to choose Unity: there is way, WAY, WAY too much risk involved by choosing it (new charges that apply retroactivelly as this one can literally kill your company) and at the same times there are viable alternatives out there without such risks.

    For any project not yet deeply tied to Unity, from the day they came up with a retroactive change to their pricing, the obvious, clear as day, choice from a business point of view became to not use anything from Unity, even for shitty shit asset-flipping “near zero investment” projects.

  • DeadNinja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    2 years ago

    Reputation is a perishable commodity. It is very hard to replenish it once gone.

    Xwitter and Reddit understood it the hard way. Even if Unity goes back to exactly where they were before this ruckus - people will think twice before trusting them again.

  • Clbull@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    2 years ago

    Nothing short of a full reversal and Unity’s entire board standing down would restore the goodwill they burned.

    • xantoxis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 years ago

      They don’t really need the goodwill; at least, the current board doesn’t need it. The amount of lock-in a game engine has on a game being developed with it is staggering. Game devs already using Unity, or at least making assets for Unity, are going to finish the projects in Unity.

      The next gen won’t be using Unity though, but the current board will have picked all the pockets they need to pick by then, and be retired on an island with their grift-money.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        They really need to make it easier for retail investors to vote, there is no reason it couldn’t all be done online. But I get like 20 different packets I need to mail back in? Most people won’t ever take the time for that.

  • Obinice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    2 years ago

    I read it, it’s clearly not an apology. Companies don’t ever apologise. Ever.

    Nobody in charge there is sorry whatsoever, they’re just looking out for their wallets.

    They’re busy trying to figure out the best way to spin this to get what they want. That’s it.

    • TheYear2525@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Dominos apologized for having shitty pizza and using misleading product photos, then improved their quality and nearly doubled their market share.

      I’m sure it was motivated by profit and PR, but that doesn’t change the fact that it had all the hallmarks of a genuine apology.

      • Spellinbee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        That really upset me. Domino’s was my favorite pizza, but then after they changed it. I don’t like it anymore. ☺️

        • PickTheStick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          Customer taste preferences are definitely odd. I liked their pizza before the change, and really liked it afterwards.

        • TheYear2525@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          If you haven’t tried their “Brooklyn Style” crust, I’d give it a try. I don’t like their new regular crust at all. Brooklyn Style only comes in large and extra-large, though.

  • rastilin@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Anyone who still uses Unity for their new projects after this would have to be completely stupid. Of course they’ll jack up the pricing again as soon as they can.

    • Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      The ONLY acceptable apology at this point is a complete roll back and a full announcement of the direction they plan to take the company in for the next 5+ years.

      They’ve absolutely lost the trust of devs, designers and hobbyists.

  • loutr@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 years ago

    Sorry our awesome plan was so clever it got you confused. We’ll try and make it simple for you morons next time.

    Ah yes, the Macron Apology.