As a gamer, games in Unity run like smoldering hot garbage on my brand new AMD AM5 build so hopefully this gets people off of it. Valve needs to hurry up and get Source 2 out there.
Yeah, Unity games seem to famously not run well, and many gamers I know are turned off by hearing a game was made with it. I think we'll see Godot rise in popularity as well.
The first time I tried playing a Unity smartphone game, it made my phone hot. Again, that cemented my decision to just use the Android APIs when writing my own game.
> Unity run like smoldering hot garbage on my brand new AMD AM5 build
This is actually a big problem with games made with Unity. The cheapest license requires you to show the Unity splash screen. The next license up (Pro) allows you to remove this splash screen. As you can imagine, devs using the cheapest license also tend to be lower skilled or new devs and make heavy use of the asset store's free assets. The result is that when you see the Unity splash screen you are likely playing a poorly made game. And when you are playing a Unity game that is made by a professional game studio, you don't know you are playing a Unity game.
This isn't to say all devs using the personal license write bad software, but they do tend to correlate.
Unity is up to some Oracle-tier bullshit with their pricing model. I guess they figured the market for their stuff was well saturated and it's time to enshittify if they want to meet their shareholders' growth expectations.
This makes me SO glad I decided to write games without use of a commercial engine.
Can somebody explain their numbers to me? That person claims 100M installs/downloads a year with 1M revenue? By install numbers that would be a top 10 mobile game?
E.g., according to a quick google search, a FIFA Mobile and a Garena Free Fire has about the same amount of downloads in 2022. (Both in the top 10.)
I'm not sure if this developer is drawing the same distinction, but Unity seems to count updates to the game on app stores as a new install for those users, as well as things like initiating the web version of a game. So if you have a few million downloads and you push out even a token update a week, I can see the numbers getting that high - at least as far as Unity is concerned.
Or rather, Unity's initial Q&A responses said that. They've half-backtracked and started muddying the waters so I think they actually just didn't think it through at all.
Wait wait wait — you’re saying that at first the rule was written so every time someone visits a webpage with the Unity Web Player on it, that visit may cost the dev $0.01-$0.20 USD?!
This whole thing is such a completely nonsensical shitshow that I would be surprised if Unity the company even lasts long enough to enact this policy, what the hell is going on there?
This is why some of us have been saying, for decades, only to use free software. And to base business models on actual services, not the sale of what can be infinitely and effortlessly copied.
To the developers: You signed a contract, and now you expect to not have to live up to it? And equally to users: Why are you using a broken toy computer not under your control that effectively acts only to hurt you? Euphemistically calling it a "telephone" does not hide the fact you are in an abusive relationship with Microsoft/Apple/Google/Amazon (the 'evil MAGA'). Throw those gadgets away, stop hurting yourself.
> Why are you using a broken toy computer not under your control that effectively acts only to hurt you? Euphemistically calling it a "telephone" does not hide the fact you are in an abusive relationship with Microsoft/Apple/Google/Amazon (the 'evil MAGA'). Throw those gadgets away, stop hurting yourself.
Because most users are not looking for a device that is a full blown computer they can fully control. The toy computer they have in their pocket is good enough for them. Heck I'm a dev & power user and the toy computer of a phone I use as my daily driver is good enough for me when I'm chilling on the sofa/lying in bed/out with friends and I just want to query something and I just want/need an "internet consumption device" as I still have my laptop/desktop when I need a full blown computer.
A key realization is that people don't buy computers (and phones) to run operating systems, or to run software. They buy computers to accomplish tasks. The software isn't what matters, completing the task in the manner they expect is.
But most of Apples customer base wouldn't care if they did/didn't. If there was market demand for a fully open iPhone Apple would open up the iPhone more.
Agreed, now that I know the question you were answering was about the market as a whole, I see the source of disagreement. We weren't interpreting the GP question the same way.
The question:
> Why are you using a broken toy computer not under your control that effectively acts only to hurt you?
The question to me was about a person's personal motive for choosing iPhone or Google Android, etc, not a macro argument about market demand, but I think it's reasonable that "you" could be interpreted as either micro or macro level
Well for me SAI_Peregrinus worded it better: "A key realization is that people don't buy computers (and phones) to run operating systems, or to run software. They buy computers to accomplish tasks. The software isn't what matters, completing the task in the manner they expect is."
Speaking to my non-geek friends, they simply don't care that their phone can't run every piece of software out there, they only care if they reach for their device and can't complete a task they wanted to do in the manner they expected to complete it, and I could prob count on one hand the times I've had people come up to me over the years with a question about a task that couldn't completed within the eco-system of their phone.
You said "Nothing you said seems incompatible with an open device. Apple could open/unlock your device tomorrow and it wouldn't change a single thing you said." And that is true, Nothing I said and have seen in the wild is preventing Apple/Google/Samsung releasing a full open phone, apart from that the vast majority of their customer base (at the moment) simply does not care if its open or not so manufacturers have no reason to be open.
Even if I ask them about cost of software and suggest to them that the cost of their apps could be lower if they downloaded them directly from the dev or even from a 3rd party store they don't seem too bothered even then, I mean look at the game console market of another example of consumer apathy about open eco-systems. Though tbf, due to the Steam Deck I have seen a bump in "Oh, I can run pretty much anything on it? even those old childhood games I loved via emulation?" and "Oh I can purchase my games cheaper via key resellers?" once they get a hold of it, so maybe the world isn't as lost as it seems to be.
> To the developers: You signed a contract, and now you expect to not have to live up to it?
From what I can tell, it’s more like they have a short term contract they are happy with, but their business model requires them to be able to extend it. They can avoid the new fees ‘simply’ by not letting any user download their Unity games after Jan 1.
I can't imagine arguing or thinking seriously that the majority of computers exist even "effectively" to only hurt us in some way. By computer did you actually mean some sort of antique ball torture device? I won't argue that the companies that control and make these devices aren't evil and responsible for some pretty awful things but it's really odd to argue that most users are "hurting" themselves by using the devices they use.
I promise they would consider having the type of full control and responsibility you're describing as far more harmful and annoying than anything those big 4 could accomplish to them individually.
Unity silently changed the contract a little while back to remove the "we can't change this contract arbitrarily without you agreeing" clause. Which is to say, the terms that most of these devs would have agreed to when they started their current games _was_ one where Unity agreed not to force contract changes onto them.
Which is why it is not unreasonable for the devs to be both pissed off and feeling like they might have legal recourse as well.
The problem here is not using propietary software but building your product/business on top of a contract that can be changed by Unity whenever they feel like squeezing you for more money.
> This is why some of us have been saying, for decades, only to use free software. And to base business models on actual services, not the sale of what can be infinitely and effortlessly copied.
You also didn't predict this; at best people have predicted the possibility. This decision is not an inherent property of non-free software. Maybe it's inherent to some types of management, but it's not a foregone conclusion. Believing that this is inherent in non-free software is belief that Unity is blameless for making this decision.
I welcome any community of any size to create a good open-source 3D game engine. I've been waiting for a long time for equivalent-quality free alternatives to paid software for multiple disciplines and there are very few, if any.
Turns out that almost no one wants to work for free, and those that do don't seem to understand what makes paid software worth using, because almost all open-source tools like this are little more than toys with very narrow and specific use cases which are fleshed out. the use cases which do have something resembling support are not what I have ever wanted to build, so those feature columns are useless to me, and many others.
This is so funny/bizarre... they make $8k over 1 million. Which means that with 100 mil installs they have to give Unity their entire revenue even at 1 cent per install.
BUT if they actually only made $999k they wouldn't actually have to pay anything at all.
I assume it's a fringe case but it's still staggering how little thought Unity's upper management put into this massive decision.
This is probably an intentional move by Unity. Low revenue per install is typically a sign of adware/malware or trashy fad products ("punch %POLITICIAN% in the face" kind games). It makes sense why they would not want their engine to be associated with such titles.
Probably true, considering the new revenue limits are per game (and not company) I'd be surprised if there are necessarily that many games like this which make over 1 million.
However looking at how they announced this and how they seemingly weren't even able to clearly explain how this whole thing is even supposed to work (what's an "install", who pays for Gamepass/Apple Arcade/etc. installs etc.) in the initial post, I'm still not certain that was intentional.
Unity's announcement has got to be the dumbest move made by a commercial entity ever in the history of commercial entities. They've just destroyed their business and countless other people's businesses with that one simple trick.
36 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 144 ms ] threadThis is actually a big problem with games made with Unity. The cheapest license requires you to show the Unity splash screen. The next license up (Pro) allows you to remove this splash screen. As you can imagine, devs using the cheapest license also tend to be lower skilled or new devs and make heavy use of the asset store's free assets. The result is that when you see the Unity splash screen you are likely playing a poorly made game. And when you are playing a Unity game that is made by a professional game studio, you don't know you are playing a Unity game.
This isn't to say all devs using the personal license write bad software, but they do tend to correlate.
This makes me SO glad I decided to write games without use of a commercial engine.
E.g., according to a quick google search, a FIFA Mobile and a Garena Free Fire has about the same amount of downloads in 2022. (Both in the top 10.)
Or rather, Unity's initial Q&A responses said that. They've half-backtracked and started muddying the waters so I think they actually just didn't think it through at all.
To the developers: You signed a contract, and now you expect to not have to live up to it? And equally to users: Why are you using a broken toy computer not under your control that effectively acts only to hurt you? Euphemistically calling it a "telephone" does not hide the fact you are in an abusive relationship with Microsoft/Apple/Google/Amazon (the 'evil MAGA'). Throw those gadgets away, stop hurting yourself.
Because most users are not looking for a device that is a full blown computer they can fully control. The toy computer they have in their pocket is good enough for them. Heck I'm a dev & power user and the toy computer of a phone I use as my daily driver is good enough for me when I'm chilling on the sofa/lying in bed/out with friends and I just want to query something and I just want/need an "internet consumption device" as I still have my laptop/desktop when I need a full blown computer.
The question:
> Why are you using a broken toy computer not under your control that effectively acts only to hurt you?
The question to me was about a person's personal motive for choosing iPhone or Google Android, etc, not a macro argument about market demand, but I think it's reasonable that "you" could be interpreted as either micro or macro level
Speaking to my non-geek friends, they simply don't care that their phone can't run every piece of software out there, they only care if they reach for their device and can't complete a task they wanted to do in the manner they expected to complete it, and I could prob count on one hand the times I've had people come up to me over the years with a question about a task that couldn't completed within the eco-system of their phone.
You said "Nothing you said seems incompatible with an open device. Apple could open/unlock your device tomorrow and it wouldn't change a single thing you said." And that is true, Nothing I said and have seen in the wild is preventing Apple/Google/Samsung releasing a full open phone, apart from that the vast majority of their customer base (at the moment) simply does not care if its open or not so manufacturers have no reason to be open.
Even if I ask them about cost of software and suggest to them that the cost of their apps could be lower if they downloaded them directly from the dev or even from a 3rd party store they don't seem too bothered even then, I mean look at the game console market of another example of consumer apathy about open eco-systems. Though tbf, due to the Steam Deck I have seen a bump in "Oh, I can run pretty much anything on it? even those old childhood games I loved via emulation?" and "Oh I can purchase my games cheaper via key resellers?" once they get a hold of it, so maybe the world isn't as lost as it seems to be.
From what I can tell, it’s more like they have a short term contract they are happy with, but their business model requires them to be able to extend it. They can avoid the new fees ‘simply’ by not letting any user download their Unity games after Jan 1.
But yeah, using free software would avoid this.
I promise they would consider having the type of full control and responsibility you're describing as far more harmful and annoying than anything those big 4 could accomplish to them individually.
Which is why it is not unreasonable for the devs to be both pissed off and feeling like they might have legal recourse as well.
Meanwhile, people like to actually play games.
You also didn't predict this; at best people have predicted the possibility. This decision is not an inherent property of non-free software. Maybe it's inherent to some types of management, but it's not a foregone conclusion. Believing that this is inherent in non-free software is belief that Unity is blameless for making this decision.
I welcome any community of any size to create a good open-source 3D game engine. I've been waiting for a long time for equivalent-quality free alternatives to paid software for multiple disciplines and there are very few, if any.
Turns out that almost no one wants to work for free, and those that do don't seem to understand what makes paid software worth using, because almost all open-source tools like this are little more than toys with very narrow and specific use cases which are fleshed out. the use cases which do have something resembling support are not what I have ever wanted to build, so those feature columns are useless to me, and many others.
BUT if they actually only made $999k they wouldn't actually have to pay anything at all.
I assume it's a fringe case but it's still staggering how little thought Unity's upper management put into this massive decision.
However looking at how they announced this and how they seemingly weren't even able to clearly explain how this whole thing is even supposed to work (what's an "install", who pays for Gamepass/Apple Arcade/etc. installs etc.) in the initial post, I'm still not certain that was intentional.
The Death of Unity
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37486431