178
Unity ring in the new year by firing 1,800 people in the name of "long-term and profitable growth"
(www.rockpapershotgun.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
178 points (100.0% liked)
PCGaming
6487 readers
7 users here now
Rule 0: Be civil
Rule #1: No spam, porn, or facilitating piracy
Rule #2: No advertisements
Rule #3: No memes, PCMR language, or low-effort posts/comments
Rule #4: No tech support or game help questions
Rule #5: No questions about building/buying computers, hardware, peripherals, furniture, etc.
Rule #6: No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
Rule #7: No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts
Rule #8: No off-topic posts/comments
Rule #9: Use the original source, no editorialized titles, no duplicates
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I can't really respond to a non existent opinion. I'm interested in hearing your perspective on what you actually think about the fees.
I would argue you could download Unity right now and have all the tools to make a very good game and you wouldn't pay a dime.
The rub is, when you start making significant money, Unity should also make some money, I think there's a fair deal in there.
If you don't think Unity employees should be able to put food on the table too, then I can't say you're making a case in good faith.
Again the issue is, in that fair deal, out of touch rich people decided to make an absurd change without telling anyone, and that isn't something you should do to your customers or partners. Obviously they're dealing with the consequences of that.
That being said, this rhetoric that there shouldn't be fees should stop. Unity isn't an open source project that relies on donations, there's Godot for that. People are losing their jobs over these decisions and there are people in the community that seem to think Unity happens for free.
Why do you keep pushing this strawman that Unity/devs shouldn't make money? Literally no one thinks that. The crux of the issue is not that anyone thinks Unity should change their name to UNICEF and start donating their resources to the public; it's that they're charging exorbitant fees, and doing so in a shitty and exploitative manner.
You are the only one who doesn't seem to understand this but a quick Google search will clear that right up for you because there is no shortage of publications, developers, or individuals explaining how completely batshit insane and unsustainable their monetization model suddenly became.
I'm not convinced it's a strawman, people are offended by the fee structure, and I don't think you need to look very far to see that. I don't agree with the fee structure or how they did it, but you can make the case that fees did need to increase.
Your responses are reading with some emotion, so I hope this isn't offending you. I think we probably agree in general that Unity's leadership did a shitty thing, but all I'm saying is it's more complicated than most people give it credit. Neither of us speak for groups of people, so let's do our best to not make assumptions of each other.
You're right, people are offended by the fee structure. That's not the same as saying Unity shouldn't be profitable and devs shouldn't be paid.
I am "emotional" because you're defending one of many corporations with garbage ethics and an insatiable appetite for ever-increasing profits, only this time they boiled the frog too quickly and are suffering the consequences.
I am "emotional" because you are right, it was a very popular and accessible gaming engine and they've run it into the ground trying to squeeze cash out of their consumers.
There is no shortage of other ways they could have increased revenue but they chose the most scummy avenue possible.
Well in either case, I'm not your enemy. I'm interested in defending the people that make Unity possible and are passionate about enabling game developers. Having a discourse where people share insight is much more valuable than emotional pointing at the problem, you know?
Anyone who makes up strawmen to misrepresent criticism while defending shitty corporations is absolutely my enemy. (That's you)
I'm sure none of the devs are responsible for the fee structure and they don't deserve to be the targets of any criticism, and to my knowledge, they aren't.
If you have some insight to share, please do go ahead. I'm dying in anticipation.
My hands are up, don't shoot! 👐
It's OK to be angry, and in a lot of ways you should be. Nothing I say is going to convince you of anything, so keep on fighting the good fight.
Are you implying that people got laid off because unity wasn’t charging customers? Was there any credible evidence imply that employees would be getting raises, and that the fees were not to appease shareholders?
No, sorry, I don't mean to imply that. Just like most situations in tech companies since the interest rate spikes has had a big impact, and negatively on employees. I mean to imply that the situation is more nuanced than most people have been saying.
Apparently putting anything other than " UNITY BAD >:( " sparks some fierce feedback.
The fact of the matter is that people using unity signed up under the conditions laid out. Unity altered the deal. Devs just prayed they wouldn't alter it further.
Correct, the changes to the fee structure was completely foolish and eroded trust with their customers. In attempting to speak to a wide audience, I'm trying to provide as much context to my point. That being, Unity was, and is (after walking back the changes) a good deal for 90% of the user-base.
I agree though that because of their behavior, you shouldn't risk building a business on their word, as it stands. To be fair, the EA dude is out and they're working on finding someone else to lead, if there's anyone else to lead after all the layoffs 😕