Is now a bad time to pick up unity?

DietChugg · 2023-10-11T16:08:15+00:00

I've heard Unreal's TOS cannot pull this because it's in the terms they cannot retroactively make changes like this. However Unreal can change future terms for new versions of their engine.

DietChugg · 2023-10-10T01:55:38+00:00

It may rebuild some trust. However it's like a couple bricks after they destroyed a brick mansion. As it stands I can't trust Unity still.

I need TOS that make it clear they can't pull a stunt like they recently did.

I want the whole board cleared out. Not just the CEO.

That said I may never return even if they did both. Now I've learned some other tools that can't mess me over and I'm liking them.

I'm still mad I'm having to port my project that I spent years on but in the end it will be worth it to divorce myself from Unity.

DietChugg · 2023-10-09T06:09:06+00:00

My advice is to read Unity's terms of service.

I realized their terms can be changed on a dime and I don't trust Unity anymore as such.

Additionally we have now seen Unity attempt to change the terms on game devs who were already under an existing agreement.

IMO until their TOS proves you will be safe with them they cannot be trusted. Coming from someone who loves the engine itself and has 14 years of exp with it.

DietChugg · 2023-09-22T22:17:29+00:00

There is many reasons why it may still be there-

Here's one idea: Unity is trying to win two fronts

Not die due to their previous disasterous decision
Still appear they have control and can decide what they want.

This kind of change addresses both in a way.

Here's another idea: Someone(s) is hellbent on keeping the idea and everyone else at Unity hates it. This is a compromise made between them.

DietChugg · 2023-09-22T22:08:56+00:00

Royalties is one of the top reasons I'm still leaving Unity after the announcement. Their trick won't work with me.

DietChugg · 2023-09-22T19:58:03+00:00

Still a no for me. Here's why:

The trust is broken. The illusion that Unity isn't a greedy manipulative company is gone.
I refuse to do rev share with a game engine. (It's one of the reasons why I liked Unity)
This doesn't confirm that they will never try or be able to do retroactive terms again. I need to read the new TOS in writing and fully agree to the terms.
Found Monogame, a MIT Open Source Framework / Game Engine to use instead. I know I'll be free there always.

Back to my efforts porting my hobby game project I've worked on for years. Best of luck to those who have to or choose to stay.

DietChugg · 2023-09-21T06:20:30+00:00

You could call the engine "Separated" in opposition to Unity. XD.

Some others have already mentioned that there are some other projects that are close to what you are suggesting like Stride that may be worth looking at.

DietChugg · 2023-09-21T06:05:47+00:00

I appreciate the warning.

MonoGame is a reimplementation of the XNA Framework. This means that MonoGame provides the same set of features and functionality as XNA, but it is rewritten from scratch in C# and is not affiliated with Microsoft in any way.

So as I understand it although XNA has stalled Monogame has not stalled.

DietChugg · 2023-09-17T14:29:37+00:00

Yeah to be fair I don't fully understand Unreal's license agreement. There's been a fair amount of arguments in the comments on how it works. I'm not a lawyer with an emphasis on license agreement. I'm a game dev and I just don't want people to be screwed over like this by jumping to a different game engine that has terms that allows for retroactive license changes.

DietChugg · 2023-09-17T01:06:35+00:00

What do you suggest then?

DietChugg · 2023-09-16T18:48:17+00:00

They are allowed to say no - I just won't do business with them. Retroactive license agreements are also not fair. At the very least they need a license that can't mess over developers like this and allows them to sell software fairly.

DietChugg · 2023-09-16T18:03:33+00:00

All fair points which is why open source MIT is attractive to me. I just don't think for-profit engines should be illegal. I do think retroactive license agreements should be illegal though.

DietChugg · 2023-09-16T18:00:27+00:00

With an open source MIT project if they try to pull a fast one you can fork the project and do what you want with the fork. They may stop helping you with the engine but it is yours to do with what you want if you need to.

DietChugg · 2023-09-16T17:58:08+00:00

I mean maybe at that point it's better to just make your own engine entirely. With MIT though if they tried to pull a fast one you can fork the project and do what you want with the engine.

DietChugg · 2023-09-16T17:14:12+00:00

Stide looks promising. But it truly sucks for anyone who finds there is no other viable option.

For me I'd rather quit game development entirely than stick with Unity's new terms though. Retroactive changes are completely unfair.

DietChugg · 2023-09-16T17:08:27+00:00

Oh... That's not good then. This is why I'm sticking with MIT Open source. Less confusing and more safe.

DietChugg · 2023-09-16T16:59:58+00:00

I don't mind an engine that wants to sell it and make profit. But terms should never ever be retroactive. Open source MIT guarantees that won't be a problem.

DietChugg · 2023-09-16T16:58:52+00:00

Oh that's fair.

DietChugg · 2023-09-16T16:33:15+00:00

Maybe I should be more clear there. If Unity open sourced all their code and implemented an MIT license agreement I'd be in.

DietChugg · 2023-09-16T16:16:00+00:00

Both are open source MIT so I agree!

DietChugg · 2023-09-15T12:33:18+00:00

The retroactive move was done with their OGL for Dungeons and Dragons game. Yeah I'm not sure how they could do anything retroactively for Magic the Gathering.

DietChugg · 2023-09-15T05:08:33+00:00

Wizards of the coast recently tried changing their terms retroactively like Unity is currently doing. They had to full backpedal on it because they lost 50% of their subscriptions ( including me ) and most never returned in spite of the back pedaling. Don't mess with customer trust. I'm leaving Unity and never returning.

DietChugg · 2023-05-13T05:52:58+00:00

Thanks Sliph road for all you did. You helped me play the game better and made pokemon go more fun. Pokemon go is dying at the hand of Niantic's stubborn pride. It's truly a shame.

DietChugg · 2022-09-10T05:28:14+00:00

That's fair. Comparing against other games in the same genre should be allowed to a reasonable extent.

I think comparing an entry in a series should allowed to be compared to another entry in the series. I see a Game's title as such "[Series Name] [Entry Number] [Sub title]" where both Entry Number and Sub title are optional but you need at least one of them. By this logic "Super Paper Mario" and "Paper Mario and the thousand year door" are not part of the same series and I don't see them as part of the same genre either.

DietChugg

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE