this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
836 points (99.2% liked)

Games

32518 readers
1342 users here now

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.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PixxlMan@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's without a doubt not what Unity means here though

[–] Ktanaqui@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It is exactly what Unity means; they have doubled down on the clarifications. The precise point is to charge the developer for any install a user makes once they earn a (paltry) $200K.

It's not rocket science to see that this is a very bad, very abusive idea and its targeted to hurt indie developers the most (as larger studios like EA would be on the enterprise plan and therefore on the hook for only 1/20th of the same usage).

Some simple math says that you would have to uninstall and reinstall a $5 game 20 times to completely nullify the earnings from your purchase.

It's surprisingly easy to rack up installs; between multiple devices, uninstalls for bug fixing / addressing, the OS breaking it, modded installs having to be reset, making space for other games, refreshing a device... and so on. And that's not even accounting for bad actors actively trying to damage a company.

[–] PixxlMan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Honestly I just can't believe it. It's so unbelievably stupid and prone to fraud. How did they come to this decision??

[–] Ktanaqui@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Clearly without consulting anyone with a modicum of common sense.

It's also possible its a move to deliberately piss of the customer base, so they can "back off" and implement a solution that still satisfies them, but looks like they let the "customer" (mostly) win.

For example: "We will charge $.20 for over 200K installs!" Backpedal: "We will charge $.05 for only the initial install after 500K installs!"

Pretty sure there are many documented instances of exactly this occurring, especially in the game dev industry unfortunately. (The goal was never the first offer, but rather to overshadow the real goal.)