For those on Unity Personal or Unity Plus licenses, the fee will kick in after a project crosses both $200,000 in revenue over 12 months and 200,000 total installs.
It has to cross both the revenue and installs not just not 1.
Yeah, but when they reach that limit, it says it’s gonna cost $0.20 per install. So can I reinstal the game 1 000 000 times to accumulate $200 000 of costs?
Even so, after they hit the limit, if the game costs $20 I can reinstall the game just 100 times so the developer doesn’t get any profit from that sale.
I guess that when they hit it. Reinstalling the game will generate costs so the revenue is now lower than $200 000, so it doesn’t work. But that just means that we can effectively limit the developer to $200 000 revenue.
It’d be some API call regardless, if you can figure it out you don’t even have to actually reinstall it, just call the endpoint correctly. Use a botnet to do it so it’s harder to detect as fake (there are already preexisting solutions for that) and bam, you can probably make at least a dent in their revenue.
the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) which claimed preservation supporters like the VGHF “[did] not propose a clear requirement to know who the users are or why they want to access a game.” Likewise, it suggested those lack of requirements meant supporters aimed to “reserve almost complete discretion in how they would provide access to preserve[d] games.”
Stingy. You fucks don’t make money with it anymore.
We need devs, like the maker of the Falcon 4 game to “leak” source code. Its the only reason the worlds premier combat flight sim run on a game released in the 90’s.
Should I be talking about a game that released the same year I was born? No. I’m so glad someone kept it all.
Let's be honest, was anyone expecting any different outcome from Embracer's hasty growth with cheap money? There was no way this would have worked out.
My expectation was that they were spending money that they mostly already had, but I was very excited to see a company picking up the pieces that the biggest publishers left behind. No one was going to make a new Outcast game before this, for instance. Game publishers used to put out dozens of games of all types per year, and now they might put out 5. They hinged it all on debt that they couldn’t afford though, so they’re ruining the chances of us returning to sustainable normalcy instead of what AAA has been doing for a decade.
Fiiiinally some good news on GameMaker. I honestly don’t know what they were thinking with a subscription just to use the engine, their main audience is indie devs that are just starting out so they just chased them away to engines that are free to use like Godot, Unity, Unreal, etc. You can’t even export web games in Gamemaker for free unless you upload it to Opera’s website.
I briefly used gamemaker 2 and it was a pretty good, polished engine. Shame Opera sabotaged it so much. It was becoming clear that Godot was quickly taking its users, so the timing of this announcement is good.
That makes me think that if it wasn’t for Godot and maybe the Unity fiasco they might never have done this. Competition is good and this is probably a practical example of it.
I genuinely want to hear what he thinks the cause of this issue is. Surely he is intelligent enough to put one and two together.
If you continuously underdeliver, repeatedly ignore community feedback, gaslight people into thinking something other than what they believe, and then top it off with mtx of way higher quality than the game itself - that’s all we need to know.
Make a good fucking game, and people won’t have “waning interest”. Even the most die-hard fans within my friend circles have refunded TFS, and I fully understand why
I like to think of CEOs as defense attorneys. They aren’t saying what they believe or know to be true, they are saying what their job requires them to do.
Funny how they praise success these studios achieved before suddenly slamming the door shut and firing those people, but 343 has literally been fucking the corpse of Halo for 12 years now and you still funnel then millions of dollars to keep ruining everything.
Spencer revealed the figure during an interview with Windows Central and stated that Xbox Game Pass is “financially viable, meaning it makes money,” despite that outlay.
There’s a difference between “profitable” and “how much money Microsoft wants to make after investing billions in something” and I’d wager it’s a big one
I get what you’re saying and I’m sure all the MBAs at Microsoft are shitting bricks, but I never fully understand why a company would be disappointed with a service like this one even doing only slightly better than breaking even.
Not everything needs to have infinite growth and gigantic margins as long as $-in > $-out.
I get what you saying, but I think (when it comes to video games) MS is in not position (and hasn’t been for a while) to spend in something that doesn’t gives them a solid profit. I like Game Pass, but since 2021 I subscribe only any other month or so, the novelty wore off and I have a big enough backlog to keep me occupied. MS needs (hear me out lol) some strong first party AA line up to make GP attractive.
Last year they reported 25 million subscribers. Even if every single one of those was the $10 plan, that equates to $3 Billion. Seems like they are doing okay.
That was correct about maybe 5 + years ago. However, particularly the latest 4.x builds, the 3d is top shelf. It won’t beat unreal, but it’s 3d capabilities are better than most people’s ability to use them.
I know first hand that JRPGs are a hefty projects to make, but I’m a little surprised they opted for shutting it all down and not going for Early Access to continue funding, especially as the idea seemed popular.
I can only guess that means the game is still in a pretty bad state.
It’s a microsoft product, so according to microsoft it absolutely is. It could be the most profitable product on the planet and they’d say it’s still underperforming.
It's still not a convincing one though. If it wasn't this weapon used, it would have been another, regardless of where the perp first saw it. I'm not a fan of Activision, but this isn't on them.
So I’m not a fan of guns but, “marketing guns” is not per se illegal nor unique to video games. Yet the lawsuit separates out video games specifically. So I am not sure I agree that it’s less crazy at the end of the day.
I did some cursory searches to find the actual arguments and came up blank. It’s important to note this isn’t the standard “video games cause violence” lawsuit that has absolutely no merit. This is different. The summary presented in articles is that this gun manufacturer explicitly marketed their product for things like this using a sophisticated campaign. If I understand the summary correctly, it therefore hinges on both the marketing of this specific gun and its presence across the digital landscape. The parents aren’t going after shooting in games; they’re going after a company that actively markets its products on social media and in video games.
It’s novel. I’m kinda skeptical because the solution would have to limit product placement and advertisement which has a massive lobby. There’s also nothing that really says “this specific gun leads to violence” without implicitly relying on the whole “video games cause violence” which is bullshit.
There’s precedent though. Alcohol and tobacco have significant restrictions on marketing material. I would argue that firearms should fall into the same category.
My impression was the same- eye roll at the “videogames cause violence” argument that’s been beaten to death, but I actually think they may have a point when it comes to marketing.
Sadly, I also think that COD is a military recruitment strategy (Boy Boy did a video breaking down the way the American recruiters use COD to capture a certain demographic) so I don’t think this lawsuit will go anywhere. Thought-provoking though.
gamedeveloper.com
Ważne