We removed it way before the pricing change was announced because the views were so low, not because we didn’t want people to see it.
(emphasis theirs)
I don’t believe that in the slightest. While yes, they did do that quite a while before the change took place, it was hosted there as an easy way to track changes to the ToS. I bet it was more of a “Any changes we make will stand out a lot more”, not realizing that any big change they make was going to stand out regardless (this whole thing being an example).
I mean come on, they could’ve at least tried with a better lie. I would’ve gone “Eh, maybe” if they’d said something like “Our legal team suggested that we keep it hosted in a central location, on our website”. But really, “not enough people looked at it”?? What a joke.
To be honest, in the face of how dumb that lie would be and how I have come to view stats-based decision-making (where companies favour decisions they can point to some KPI for because it makes them seem scientifically grounded over ones made “just” with human reasoning), I’ll invoke Hanlon’s Razor and say:
I absolutely think it’s possible some middle-manager looked at the view stats and decided they’d look better if they cut some chaff, never mind just what that chaff may be. Protests - if issued ar all - went unheard or unheeded, and the change went through because the numbers told them to make it.
It’s awful optics, in any case, but I’m willing to concede it may be dumb coincidence paired with dumb decisions, probably made by someone wholly uninvolved with the pricing change decision, rather than actual dumb malice.
(Doesn’t excuse the rest of their bullshit, of course)
I definitely wouldn’t completely discount that as a possibility for sure, but Unity sure is bad at damage control (as are most companies that make dumb decisions like this) - even if this is true, it would’ve been better to just not mention it, as it could only ever just douse fuel onto the already out-of-control PR fire that has erupted due to all of this.
No dispute on that front, it’s a dumb move to excuse a dumb move with a dumb excuse at a dumb time where nobody will believe that it was genuinely just dumb instead of malicious. And who knows, I might be totally wrong too.
My giving them this much credit is really just out of (possibly misplaced) idealistic desire to find alternate explanations before jumping right to accusations of malice. I’m not even entirety sure I believe it myself, to be honest.
Literally no one but legal should have the authority to remove a contract from the website, and allowing any other human being to do so is gross negligence at absolute best.
It should have sent a cascade of giant red flags the second it was touched.
Oh it definitely would be grossly negligent, but the amount of technical systems I’ve seen that somebody should have a stake in but wasn’t actually involved with… well, if Legal’s purview ends at writing up those terms, Compliance made sure they’re up in an appropriate place and nobody thought to put “make sure they are automatically involved of any change affecting this” on the checklist, all the boxes have been ticked and they won’t notice until the fallout starts hitting.
In an ideal world, any change to the master branch of that repo or to the repo itself should require the approval of a technically versed member of Legal/Compliance (or one of each, if they’re separate teams). In reality, that approval process may well exist only on paper, with no technical safeguards to enforce it.
Just to echo what Marc said, we are so sorry for our earlier actions.
We are so sorry you took our earlier actions so poorly.
Genuinely disappointed at how our removal of the ToS has been framed across the internet.
Genuinely disappointed that our removal of the TOS was noticed and publicized across the internet.
This new Runtime Fee policy will only apply beginning with the next LTS version of Unity shipping in 2024 and beyond. And Marc’s response is true, you can stay on the terms applicable for the version of Unity you are using as long as you keep using that version.
This new Runtime Fee policy will only apply beginning with the next LTS version of Unity, whereafter we will do everything we can to invalidate prior versions of Unity, and force upgrades on users.
We do have a fireside chat ongoing with Marc where he will answer some Q’s live
We do have a fireside chat ongoing with Marc where he will answer whichever Qs live we find convenient to our narrative, and ignore any that are not.
Please forget about our attempted greed, so we can try again in a stealthier manner in the near future, at our earliest convenience.
Marc’s response is true, you can stay on the terms applicable for the version of Unity you are using as long as you keep using that version.
Oh shit, our lawyers have just informed us (again, but this time I listened) that trying to change terms of service after they’ve already been agreed is actually not legal and could get us in trouble.
Microsoft-Activision sold streaming rights for their games to Ubisoft as a concession to avoid being labeled a monopoly so the merger could go through.
It’s not a especially big surprise they are that scummy if you know their CEO (even EA let go of him because he was too greedy for them) but fuck is that another dick move, I am totally sure they didn’t do it to hide upcomming changes…
Unity: Disappointed to discover denying access to a document with legal standing to the affected parties could have legal implications, and now trying to make up a cover story.
Words have meaning. If they want to convince people removing the ToS was an honest mistake (almost unbelievable bad timing, but whatever), they shouldn’t make a non-apology beginning with “genuinely disappointed” and saying they’ve been “framed”.
Because they get to never say in whom they’re disappointed, and I choose to interpret it as “disappointed in all of you people for being meanies and assuming the worst”.
lol at choosing to present it in a way that implied there was no way to avoid the retroactive license change (which you explicitly said you wanted to apply retroactively, charging fees based on activity prior to your license change), then blaming the community for interpreting it how you told us it works.
It’s crazy how successful they’ve been off just making and selling a good indie game. They’re still doing free updates AND they can afford a $200k donation?
Terraria is like the anti-modern game. They absolutely refuse to evilly monetize their game at all. The playerbase is almost on their knees, begging them to move on from Terraria and make something else (not because Terraria is bad, but they’ve been at it for over a decade!) and they continue to churn out updates. The fanbase voted for a set of features to appear in Terraria 2, which they then turned around and scrapped, and added it as an update to Terraria. And all their updates are always free. And can’t forget about their amazing mod support.
The playerbase is almost on their knees, begging them to move on from Terraria and make something else (not because Terraria is bad, but they’ve been at it for over a decade!) and they continue to churn out updates
dont worry, im sure update 1.4.5 will be the final final final final final finalfinal update, and then they will move on.
Tbf it takes a significantly smaller team to develop a 2d platforming game like terraria. The overhead for art and design is mush simpler too than something like a Cyberpunk 2077
One of the, if not the best games in the last 15+ years.
I’m not exaggerating. At all. I am not a fan of a vast majority of “popular” modern games and think gaming has been on the decline since the mid-90s. In a massive pile of garbage “AAA” and “modern indie” titles, Terraria is the one shining, beautiful, wonderful spot that just gets gameplay right, with no gimmicks, no BS, no boring intrusive story, nothing but good, solid gameplay.
It’s one of my favorite games of all time. So all this makes me very happy.
Out of curiosity can you define “no boring intrusive story”? Because personally I’m big on storylines, so if they nail that part then that takes the game to a whole other level
I tried playing Terraria but gave up after an hour or so, precisely because I expected at least some kind of story and there wasn’t. It was also very awkward to control with a mouse and keyboard, I think it’s really supposed to be played with a controller. I might try it again now that I’ve got one, and less expectations
In some games storyline matters, in others… not so much. Games with a storyline trend to be less replayable in my experience. One exception I can think of is This War of Mine, that game is really depressing.
Story for me in games should be one that sets up the reason you’re playing the game and that’s basically it. No endless dialog or narrative during the game. Small bits of things that can advance the plot is fine, but most games these days seem to talk endlessly about things.
Terraria has zero of that. You’re in the Terraria world and that’s it. No real story to tell besides what happens in the world (show, don’t tell). It’s fantastic.
It’s time to dust off Terraria and go on a nice run again.
Edit: I will, of course, be first in line to buy any new games they release. They donated $100k to a FOSS project I use and love, thus to me as well indirectly, I can give some of my disposable income back to then.
They came out around peak indie craze, 14 or so years ago. I believe they were just behind Minecraft in terms of success. Total lifetime sales for their game have it outselling Skyrim.
twitter.com
Aktywne