Picture taken from their Twitter

351 points

I love that last line.

“We have never made a public statement before. This is how badly you fucked up.”

permalink
report
reply
35 points

A public statement ever? Or about this? If the former, damn.

permalink
report
parent
reply
54 points

ever

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

It must have felt good to say but I suspect they’d have better chance of seeing positive results if they avoided confronting the Unity team’s egos.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

If Unity dies, it dies.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

The only way Unity can realistically fix it at this point is to pull a WotC and not just backtrack all these changes, but implement a legal mechanism that guarantees changes like this cannot ever be retroactively applied to past versions of the engine.

I don’t think Unity will do that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
237 points

Is it just me or are all big companies killing themself right now?

permalink
report
reply
19 points

Welcome to late stage capitalism. The US is totally doing great…

permalink
report
parent
reply
159 points

Yeah, inflation rate is high, so central banks are trying to counteract that by basically slowing down the economy, so that our normally scheduled inflation countermeasures kick in appropriately. Well, and the usual way to slow down the economy is to make it more costly to loan money, i.e. increase interest rates. Which means investors can’t just pump money into any company anymore, they want that money to actually pay out to cover those interest rates. And that means companies need to actually be profitable to get money to finance their operation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
98 points

So does that mean all these businesses were always doomed to fail anyways, just living on borrowed money/time, and now the bill comes due, they’re all fucked?

permalink
report
parent
reply
62 points

Kind of. In the past investors were willing to be more patient, and company values were artificially high, because they were based on potential profits rather than actual profits. That’s shifting a bit as interest rates go up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

Eh. Most of these companies were profitable. Just not seeing the exponential growth that the stock market dictates when interest rates are high. Unity, not so much, but its revenue was always fine, its just a really poorly run company. Who knows where they piss the kind of money they are pulling in to.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

I’d guess that companies that failed to turn profit when money was cheap are most likely doomed. However not all of the hype companies are like that. Some could be barely profitable, but shareholder pressure might push them to heavier monetization practices.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

Welcome to capitalism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

A lot of the wealth created by venture capital and the service economy were only ever possible with the help of what is essentially free money. With the increase in interest rates and the collapse of a major venture capital bank, those corporations dependent on low interest payments are going to collapse as well.

As interest rates climb and venture capital dries up, the companies who were just scraping by, or dependent on debt loading during development have had their runway cut short.

We are getting to the point where companies aren’t going to be utilize fronting a huge amount of debt as a strategy for long term growth.

Unity looks to be one of the companies who wanted to utilize the slow boil tactic perfected by the likes of Google or Amazon. Where they front the cost of tons of free and convenient services, hoping that companies become dependent on them, slowly creating fees over time until they become profitable.

If I were a guessing guy, they’ve hit the end of their run way, and have failed to secure a new injection of capital sufficient enough to make the payments on their loans. Likely their options have come to find a way to make your payments, or you’ll be giving your entire operation to a bank.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
56 points

Simplified: If you can borrow 1 Million USD for 0% apr and earn 1000 USD with that, you have 1000 USD in profits. Now change the apr to 5% and you are 49,000 USD in the red.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

This would make sense if Unity increased their fees, but it doesn’t make sense to invent a new revenue stream based on a metric you can’t even accurately measure. That’s profit-seeking.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I’m guessing it’s their last ditch effort to remain in good solvency. A board member making trades before a big change is almost always a sign of the rats abandoning the ship.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

And it’s most costly to increase interest rates not because those directly affect the investors, but because those interest rates affect the borrowers since the borrowers will need to make more and more money to be able to pay back the initial injection + interest.

If borrowers don’t think they can pay back, then they probably won’t borrow in the first place. If they do borrow but don’t make enough to pay back those loans + interest, then the investor loses out.

And if borrowers don’t borrow in the first place, then investors sit on their money when they could theoretically inject it into other businesses so they can earn on what they own, and not just let their assets stagnate (or decay). To investors, this might also be perceived as a loss.

Do I have that right?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

In principle, yes, although two things to note:

  1. Borrowing isn’t always the active part. When a company is listed on the Stock Exchange, then investors play the active role by buying or selling their stock.

  2. Most investors don’t just have tons of money laying around. They have property, which they can list as security when borrowing money from banks. And then they lend that borrowed money to companies seeking(/allowing) investment. That means:
    a) With high interest rates, investors do have a need for their lent money to pay out, too. As do the banks, because they borrowed it from the central bank.
    b) Ultimately, lots of money will be given back to the central bank. The money is effectively removed from the economy then. If you’ve ever heard that inflation comes from too much money being in circulation, that’s how that ties back in.

I’m no expert either, though. I’m just summarizing what makes sense to me and what I’ve learnt from making this post a few weeks ago: https://feddit.de/post/2514573

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Well, with the current happenings around the world loans got a lot more expensive and that’s basically what internet companies run on since the start, many of them never made a profit but even others will run their buissines to the ground during inflation and shit!

permalink
report
parent
reply
40 points

Corporate suicide is so hot right now, all the cool companies are doing it. Are you really even trying if you can’t feel the pain of the bullet in your foot?

permalink
report
parent
reply
100 points

I’ve said this for about a decade now: I firmly believe this world we live in now is the inevitable, unavoidable result of having every company run by people with business degrees and no passion for the businesses they run. When your entire education was focused on how to extract one more penny from customers and how to psychologically make addicts out of everyone, this is what we end up with. I fucking hate it. Everything is enshitified and it sucks.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

Agreed, VC have poured free money into excellent, but unsustainable businesses trying to chase ‘growth’ long enough that they can sell out just before everyone realizes that it won’t make money. It’s just a scam of rich people preying on other rich people.

Instead of trying to build a self sustaining company to begin with (which requires hard work to balance revenue against customer needs and desires) they build ‘free’ products that people love, but can’t make money, only to switch the company to crappy products that people hate, but now are trapped into using.

Our entire digital economy is built on these bait and switch companies and it sucks

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I disagree. This is all the system working as expected. There is no such thing as infinite growth and yet we are conditioned to always need it or else it’s a failure.

We are on an ever accelerated race to the bottom.

The definition of success is woefully broken.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I feel like we’re saying the same thing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The system may be failing, but “infinite growth” is the natural result of inflation which is intentionally targeted to a positive number.

If you think your salary should keep up with inflation, then you too need infinite growth.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

result of having every company run by people with business degrees and no passion for the businesses they run

You’d think that even soulless business ghouls would’ve learned somewhere along the way to put a price tag on things like long-term customer loyalty and the soft power of your brand. So either they’re too dumb to take all the variables into account or they’re looking only at short term gains.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Short term gains, every time. These people will take a dollar today over ten tomorrow every chance because they have tunnel vision and only focus on immediate profits happening RIGHT NOW. Ironically the people most likely to drone on about investments are the least likely to really understand their functionality and what investing time or money into something is supposed to mean and accomplish. Most companies these days feel like their just trying to gobble up enough cash to survive their impending failure, it feels so bleak.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

This angle is absolutely brutal. Never seen it that way.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Sort of but not exactly, the recent shift is because money has gotten expensive and now investors are wanting to take a profit rather than tossing money around hoping to get lucky. So now these business types are scrambling to do anything that makes the business profitable when their entire business plan was unsustainable without the constant influx of money keeping them afloat under the guise of “growth”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I think I disagree a bit. It is the owners of the companies that have no passion for what they do. They just want that particular position in their portfolio to appreciate or spit out dividends.

Then they put the MBAs in charge to get the most efficient use of capital.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

We just live in a dystopia. The leadership will milk you dry, for pennies, for short term profits. When you’re this greedy, you can’t see more than a day into the future. It’s just another reminder than corporations aren’t your friends

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

The poor guys just want to fulfil the infinite company growth expectations of their stakeholders.

Eat the rich. ALIVE.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

What really bugs me is that it’s not even infinite growth they’re after. What they want is as high growth as possible as soon as possible. Planning a sustainable long term profit business would mean great employee benefits to attract and keep the best, a ton of funding for new product development, and building things slightly more expensive so that they last longer.

There is no financial analysis that would say cutting safety measures is a net positive to your money in the long run. The bill will come due and you’ll lose an extraordinary amount of money when things blow up or derail. If I make a change that raises my risk to 1% over a year to have a safety incident which would cost me 5 billion, I’d have to save more than 50 million each year with that decision for it to make me more money. Plus it would take 100 years for the realized savings to cancel out the event. If it happened before 100 years, I’m at a net negative.

All of that is to say that the stakeholders aren’t just greedy bastards, they’re also dumb as fuck. But that’s not surprising – the type of person with that much money didn’t get it from consistently working over time. They think playing fast and loose will work in their favor always.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

“activist investors” of the worst kind has forgotten what makes the companies valuable and want quick money

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Publicly traded companies*

Private ones dont always have CEOs chasing every penny looking for only short term gains.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Depends on if they still have private investors propping them up.

If they’ve not paid back their loans to the private investors yet, said investors are looking for their loans to be paid back and then some.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Not just companies, but countries too. We’ve apparently reached the Age of Idiocy where everyone that got big is just doing these epic face-plants. I don’t know if it’s desperation, arrogance, greed, or a combination, but so many shitty decisions coming out left and right all over the place.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

Late stage capitalism. You can’t expect year over year growth for eternity without running into a resource cap. Profit growth is all the shareholders care about because it’s literally written into United States economics laws that investors get paid first. All these dirty tricks and bad decisions are coming from CEO’s with limited understanding of the effects of their policies, trying to push for an extra 2% on top of their already obscene margins

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It’s time we move away from capitalism. :( It was obvious years ago that it’s not a sustainable ideology in the long run…

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

I like to call it the “2023 Userbase Alienation Olympics”

permalink
report
parent
reply
473 points

They should honestly just move their engine anyway. Unity has played their hand, and showed they are willing to make changes to their pricing retroactively.

permalink
report
reply
132 points

Yep, they might roll back the changes this time but they’ve shown where they want to be and now we know. They’ll work their way slowly towards it instead of a sudden change now and it will be less noticeable and harder to fight legally when they do that

permalink
report
parent
reply
126 points

They’re cranking the bad PR to 11 so they can dial it back to 9 and point to it as a compromise.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

The exact same thing was said about Reddit execs like Huffman. They never cared enough to compromise. We’ll see if the Unity execs are similarly terrible people, whose greed will destroy the company. Seems like the trend these days.

permalink
report
parent
reply
70 points

I think most developers can see the writing in the wall there, but switching mid-way through a project will be costly and time consuming. If the changes were fully rolled back, I would still bet many would finish what they working on and then switch for their next game.

permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points

Problem is that if your current unity game is successful this year, and then they reimplement the retroactive charge next year, you’re still screwed. If you can afford it then it’s best to change now in order to avoid that mess that might mean you have to delist your game

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

How can it even be applied?

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Exactly. They should take this as the warning it is, and start work on moving to an engine not run by morons.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

I have a feeling a lot of the engine devs from unity are seeing the writing on the wall and looking for places to jump to. Betting they have a brain drain soon

permalink
report
parent
reply
104 points

I bet they will do so for their next game but reimplementing a entire game is FAR easier said than done, something like that could very well bankrupt a smaller studio!

permalink
report
parent
reply
-91 points
*

I mean it’s easy to reimplement entire games if you’ve built it modularly. Just swap your core game logic to run on another library and the game works the same it did before.

Edit: 'course, exceptions exist like if you wrote everything using their proprietary coding language, instead of using something universal.

Edit 2: It MAY still be possible that a translation/compiler exists that’ll run as a plugin in a proprietary engine, and converts it into something universal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

Game Dev isnt just code. Remaking a project from scratch is a massive undertaking. Porting the code could be difficult too especially if relying on core unity libraries.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
*

I’ve written game engine wrappers and converters for all sorts of code and file types.

It would honestly be easier to fire up Unreal Engine 5 or Godot and start again.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

It also depends on how many engine unique features you used, and what optimizations you applied. It’s certainly possible, but doing it without changing any game logic will require very complicated translation layers which will likely cause performance issues. It might very well be easier to treat it as a porting and refactoring project. You might not even realize which behaviors are unique to each engine if you don’t regularly develop in multiple engines.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

Technically you’re not wrong. The work is done, the logic already exists.

But systems like Unity aren’t like other code where you can rip one section out and still have 80% of a working codebase. Game engines are as fundamental to most of their game code as the language it’s written in. It’s not like you can just drop things into unreal or godot, connect a few interfaces and call it good. You still have to write the whole thing from the ground up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

The surface area is huge. This is not an SQL database where you can just change the ORM’s backend.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

But not moving could be far worse based on what some devs are saying.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Not moving is what they’ll do if “changes are completely reverted and TOS protections are put in place”. In such a case, while punishing Unity is still desirable, there won’t be installation fees that justify the costs of rewriting the game.

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

Alright guys, time to get more copies of slay the spire

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Just buy them, don’t install them though. That’ll charge them soon

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Alright fine. But I already own it on three systems… takes out wallet

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

just

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

This. It’s not easy or trivial but as a long term strategy, they should already plan investing efforts into consolidating something like Godot or another FOSS engine. They should play like you calm down an abuser you can’t just escape yet while planning their demise when the time has come.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
4 points

See the devs just need to pass the cost back to the consumers, retroactively /s

permalink
report
parent
reply
-300 points

Get fucked, you could have use godot to develop your game or any other free engine

permalink
report
reply
51 points

Well that’s… a take.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points
*

They are technically correct in that it’s the developers fault that they tied themselves to a proprietary game engine.

In the other hand Godot was nowhere near mature when the slay the spire devs most likely started development. They would be dumb if they used unity for their next game 🤷

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points

2014: “You guys should be careful building your industry around proprietary tools, you really should think about open source-” “Blah blah blah stop your moralizing, open source software isn’t 100% ready to go right now so we absolutely can’t use it, instead we’re just going to pay money for this turnkey solution.”

2023: “Help! The proprietary turnkey solution we’ve been paying for this whole time is enshitifying! Subscription models, mandatory cloud services, more and steeper fees!” “Open source tools are still a thing, you know.” “Yeah but we’ve spent a decade telling an entire generation of talent to learn the proprietary stuff so it’s hard to migrate, and we didn’t contribute any code or money to FOSS projects this whole time so it still isn’t up to snuff.”

Well I guess you can slide over to Unreal and kick that can down the road a bit waiting for Epic Games to enshitify their product as well, you can use and contribute to Godot, you can develop your own in-house engine, or you can keep taking it up the ass from Unity.

Just let me ask this: If even a few smaller games, something like Unrailed or Papers Please, used Godot and contributed what they paid to Unity to the Godot team…where would the engine be today?

permalink
report
parent
reply
104 points

Get fucked, you could have use critical thinking to develop your opinion or not been a prick

permalink
report
parent
reply
66 points

I think many would agree that it’d be great for FOSS engines to get more attention and contributions, but this is the most asinine way to get that message across

permalink
report
parent
reply
66 points

It’s not even getting it across. It just associates FOSS engines with assholes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

Yes hindsight certainly is 20:20 isn’t it. What a pearl of wisdom you have bestowed upon us this day.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Are people not allowed to change their minds? It’s called progress

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

the “just don’t do it” argument ignores the problem. it’s like replying “just don’t buy Apple products” to people complaining about right to repair. the key part is that regular people won’t know beforehand until they need to notice. by that point, it’s profitable enough to show other companies like Samsung and Motorolla that restrictions are profitable, so jumping around brands will also never work when the intention is to have your phone for a long time.

back in the context of game dev, add that to the part where not only people don’t anticipate the retroactive changes of a license they have to rely on when choosing an engine, but there’s the added weight of having to learn an entirely new library and oftentimes even an entire new programming language, so you have to commit to it if you want to make a commercial product or else you risk losing literal years of development just from rewriting the same thing over and over.

not to say that there’s a reason why a lot of people chose Unity. Godot may be in development since 2014 but they are still relatively new in popularity. not only they have less total instructions resources from the community due to it obviously being smaller than Unity’s, but people also look for already known games as one of the first factors when choosing something, which is something Godot is still catching up on. knowing legal jargon to even comprehend the difference between free and proprietary is the least of their worries when someone wants to jump into game development and build stuff with it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I’m reminded of a post recently where someone asked how to get rid of a dialog in Windows and got swamped with replies saying to install Linux. It’s like getting a check engine light in your car and being told to buy a truck.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-11 points
*

Yeah, fuck console sales, amiright?

@Voyajer is either a jackass or doesn’t understand sarcasm.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Buddy you’re at -6 for a low effort comment, don’t get buttmad at me. Why are you going back and checking your reduces so obsessively?

permalink
report
parent
reply
48 points

Godot has just recently began to gain steam. I don’t think it was a viable option when StS was in development.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Unfortunately, it still isn’t for console development.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

On their website it says it is via third party publishers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
92 points

Unity: Successfully implemented a product strategy that floods the market with game developers that know how to use its product.

You, an insufferable prick: “Why would they use a product they could find ready-trained developers for when they could use a niche product no one has any skills in??!?”

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

The Unity training materials are amazing. I took their beginner programming course and even made a tiny little game of my own afterwards. I had plans to make a real game later for fun. It’s awesome software and they have a great ecosystem for beginners with no experience.

So it’s a huge loss, but why would I support them now when Godot exists? The only prospective user I can think of now is someone with no experience that needs all the tutorials, so they’re only using them to learn and have no dreams of making a successful game. All the wannabe devs who think they’re going to make the next great indie hit (and trust me based on game dev forums - there are a ton), why would they set themselves up to pay a ton of money to Unity when starting out? The people they’re going to hold onto are those who don’t have the skill or resources to switch, which probably coincides fairly well with those who don’t have the skill or resources to make a commercially successful game. So they’ve limited the amount of money this move makes to existing games they can squeeze some money out of, and maybe some potential breakout hits from people who are pot committed to Unity and not skilled enough to switch. It’s a crazy move.

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

In 2017, when slay the spire released Godot was only 3 years old and not nearly ready for any serious development imo.

Just because it is quickly becoming a good option for game dev, doesn’t mean it’s a good option for every game ever in the past.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

This is exactly how I picture the Stallman fanatic crowd

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Fanatic is really good word here. We should be sorry for the devs and just give them advice.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I prefer to call them FOSSholes.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Games

!games@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

Community stats

  • 9.3K

    Monthly active users

  • 4.7K

    Posts

  • 99K

    Comments