Warning All unity creators

[rhaxe]

they want to apply the one that bill gates tried in the early 2000's only that by not being subject to a single person they can make a monopoly in a more disciplined way and that ironsurge is a scam to steal the data of all those exposed to the unity engine.

 

[PenisBonusPaxInDomi]

I did read it, and Unity's post, and I fail to see how what I said is incorrect.

" We have heard you. 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. "

"We apologize for the confusion and angst" = We're sorry you misunderstood us. (You didn't, we all know this is about $$$)
"We are listening, talking to our team members, community, customers, and partners, and will be making changes to the policy"
= watch as we offer a few insincere apologies and "changes" and still increase our profits

"Thank you for your honest and critical feedback" = we are laughing at how we will take a tiny backstep but keep most of the policies and still make a profit.


Really, it's classic doublespeak, notice they don't actually apologise for their decisions? they subtly put the blame on everyone for "misunderstanding"

also remember that the current CEO used to be CEO of EA... and look how THAT turned out.

 

[Hagatagar]

Because of the open letter from Unity (which rhaxe posted), the Unity Forum closed the

You must be registered to see the links

, for having outdated content.

You must be registered to see the links

is the current thread.

And Links to the new

You must be registered to see the links

and even a

You must be registered to see the links

.


They changed the term installs to initial engagement because it was unclear.
Here a clarification.

How does Unity define an “initial engagement” for the Runtime Fee policy?
When we first introduced the Runtime Fee policy, we used the term “installs” which the community found to be unclear so we’re using the term "initial engagement" as the unit of measure. We define an "initial engagement" to mean: the moment that a distinct end user successfully and legitimately acquires, downloads or engages with a game powered by the Unity Runtime, for the first time in a distribution channel.
To explain the definition in a little more detail:

• We use the word ‘distinct’ because we do not want you to worry about situations where it is impossible to tell players apart, such as a game deployed in a public space (such as a trade show floor). You can count such a situation as if it was 1 player.
• We use the word ‘legitimate’ because we do not want to bill you for activity from piracy, or from people obtaining the game fraudulently.
• We use the term ‘end user’ because we do not want to bill you for activity from your development team, from automated processes, or other people who are not the actual players of your game.
• We use the term ‘for the first time’ because we do not want to charge you for players playing your game multiple times, reinstalling your game, or installing your game on extra devices.
• By ‘in a distribution channel’, we mean that for a given end user, the Runtime Fee will be charged once for each method that they obtained the game. For example, if they buy your game from two different app stores, then you would count and report the initial engagement once per store; but if they buy your game from one app store and deploy it to two different devices, you would count and report the initial engagement once.

 

[Donjoe81]

I think Unity is a bad engine for Porn games anyway, but this is some Orwellian bs behaviour.
This will harm game devs and I hope that many will switch to a different engine and won´t support this.