21
Wait, is Unity allowed to just change its fee structure like that? (arstechnica.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/gaming@kbin.social
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Confusing, contradictory terms of service clauses leave potential opening for lawsuits.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 3 years ago (5 children)

Yes, but if you don't upgrade, you can keep using the old license. Unity tried to delete this from the Internet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    So if you've published a game, just keep on keeping on. You can sell that game, maintain an older copy of Unity to update it for bugs, even develop new content for that game with the older version of Unity.

    I figured this must have been in here. No professional organization would allow a TOS to pass into publishing that allowed a company to unilaterally change fees.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago

    So if you've published a game, just keep on keeping on. You can sell that game, maintain an older copy of Unity to update it for bugs, even develop new content for that game with the older version of Unity.

    According to the article, probably no.

    Many devs may have updated unity and used it for minor updates, but also the clause in question probably doesn't protect anyone anyway. There's a broader ToS that supercedes it with much more restrictive language.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    This is still up on their FAQ:

    Yes, the fee applies to eligible games currently in market that continue to distribute the runtime. We look at a game's lifetime installs to determine eligibility for the runtime fee. Then we bill the runtime fee based on all new installs that occur after January 1, 2024.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago*

    According to the article, it's not that simple. This is from the ToS for the Unity Editor, which is subservient to a broader Unity ToS that has much stricter legal language about changing anything without warning and the customer being able to go fuck themselves.

    So, yes, technically this bullshit may be completely legal. Devs who were sold Unity on "no royalties" may be forced to pay royalties. Which is definitely healthy for our society and not obviously a problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent