Much like Darkest Dungeon, game development is a dynamic and challenging effort where tough choices must be made using imperfect information. Making and releasing a game is an uncertain endeavor, with treasures never guaranteed. But that uncertainty should lie in the marketplace, not with fundamental business terms around which a project was built.
We believe Unity has made a grave misstep in introducing a poorly thought out fee mechanic and then compounded that threefold by making it apply to games that have already been released. We are sympathetic to the idea that companies must sometimes change how they operate, but these changes should be carefully planned, communicated, and enacted in such a way that partners may choose whether they wish to accept these new rules for their next projects.
We built Darkest Dungeon II using Unity, and a large part of our decision to do so was the relative cost certainty around the license and subscription model. We’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on licenses, and far more than that in engaging Unity to help us with parts of development. It is hard for us to imagine building another game with Unity unless we know we are protected from the possibility of massive changes to how we pay for that technology being introduced at the whims of executive management.
Part of game development is knowing when a mechanic is not working and then having the courage to swallow your ego and undo the mistake. We call on Unity to recant this blunder.
We at Red Hook know something about madness… Much like Darkest Dungeon, game development is a dynamic and challenging effort where tough choices must be made using imperfect information. Making and releasing a game is an uncertain endeavor, with treasures never guaranteed. But that uncertainty should lie in the marketplace, not with fundamental business terms around which a project was built. We believe Unity has made a grave misstep in introducing a poorly thought out fee mechanic and then compounded that threefold by making it apply to games that have already been released. We are sympathetic to the idea that companies must sometimes change how they operate, but these changes should be carefully planned, communicated, and enacted in such a way that partners may choose whether they wish to accept these new rules for their next projects. We built Darkest Dungeon using Unity, and a large part ofour decision to do so was the relative cost certainty around the license and subscription model. We’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on licenses, and far more than that in engaging Unity to help us with parts of deve lopment. It is hard for us to imagine building another game with Unity unless we know we are protected from the possibility of massive changes to how we pay for that technology being introduced at the whims of executive management. Part of game development is knowing when a mechanic is not working and then having the courage to swallowyour ego and undo the mistake. We call on Unity to recant this blunder.
(used Google’s text detection to copy/paste, so may not be perfect)
We at Red Hook know something about madness… Much like Darkest Dungeon, game development is a dynamic and challenging effort where tough choices must be made using imperfect information. Making and releasing a game is an uncertain endeavor, with treasures never guaranteed. But that uncertainty should lie in the marketplace, not with fundamental business terms around which a project was built. We believe Unity has made a grave misstep in introducing a poorly thought out fee mechanic and then compounded that threefold by making it apply to games that have already been released We are sympathetic to the idea that companies must sometimes change how they operate, but these changes should be carefully planned, communicated, and enacted in such a way that partners may choose whether they wish to accept these new rules for their next projects. We built Darkest Dungeon I using Unity, and a large part of our decision to do so was the relative cost certainty around the license and subscription model. We’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on licenses, and far more than that in engaging Unity to help us with parts of development. It is hard for us to imagine building another game with Unity unless we know we are protected from the possibility of massive changes to how we pay for that technology being introduced at the whims of executive management. Part of game development is knowing when a mechanic is not working and then having the courage to swallow your ego and undo the mistake. We call on Unity to recant this blunder. Red Hook
ETA: Ah, shit sorry I didn’t see someone else had already posted
Considering at this point, I only really care about F-Zero and Star Fox’s languishing, as far as Nintendo’s catalogue is concerned; I’m just not going to hype. If something’s worth seeing in the direct, I’ll hear about it and watch it after the fact.
It will ask a small fee for every install, on top of the royalties. The issue seems that for small studios this fee is not feasible, and it seems that also pirated games and demos would count
It’s only once they’ve taken in like $200k in revenue btw. Demos don’t count, neither do game pass subscriptions or games bought via humble bundle etc.
It was actually true that multiple installs per user would count multiple times, but Unity rolled back that decision not long after announcing it. However, install bombs will still be possible, I seriously doubt Unity has a fool proof way to accurately identify the same user over multiple installs if the user is reinstalling maliciously to cost the developer money.
And? It would take a trivial amount of effort to spin up VMs and install the game on each. If I immediately tear the VM down after, I’m sure my cost would be covered by free AWS credits.
But also, what entitles them to even a portion of the games proceeds? Adobe doesn’t get a cut for every digital piece you create. Dundermifflin doesn’t get a cut everytime you write a new contract. That’s absolute bullshit and they should get a fine for even thinking they’re allowed to be this big and change the rules like this. That’s a monopoly mindset.
I guess it really depends how it’s done. I don’t think an actual cut of the proceeds is fair either, but stuff like having a low entry point and scaling your tool’s cost a bit according to the project success can be a good idea.
That said after they’d try to pull a stunt like they did I definitely wouldn’t trust them anymore.
My moonshot wishlist includes -Metroid prime 2 -Legend of Zelda windwaker/twilight princess
Not expecting anything for the Switch 2 as Nintendo wouldn’t compromise holiday sales. Just just regular Switch releases this year and early next year stuff.
Oh my… I gasped when I saw another Code, and gasped even more when they announced the sequel was included in the remake. Best day ever, I had kept my old Wii to play this game with my daughter but I won’t even need that anymore !
I’m guessing January announcement and releases in April. Makes me wonder what games will be day one release? Metroid, a 3D Super Mario, but surely not a Zelda game. Unless it’s a remake of a game.
I think instead of a new 3D Mario right away we’ll get a port of Wonder, especially if it’s not backwards compatible. If that’s the case, that BotW demo they supposedly showed off at Gamescom may be a hint at a BotW port, though why they would port BotW instead of TotK at this point would be beyond me, especially when BotW was a launch title for their previous console. A different Zelda remake may be a good bet, like an HD/4K version of one of the N64 Zeldas. I still think the new F-Zero may be saved as a launch title for the new console to show off the new hardware. Either way, they need a solid, brand new entry in one of their big franchises or something new and original (a “killer app”) to promote immediate adoption, especially if they’re apparently releasing so many good games to sunset their previous console. They can’t make the same mistakes in the launch lineup that they did with consoles like the GameCube and Wii U.
No way they don’t have a new 3d mario for a launch title. It’s been 6 years since Odyssey. And they definitely need something like that for the launch. They obviously won’t have a new Zelda so Mario is pretty much the only thing they could do. Also maybe Metroid Prime 4, but Metroid hasn’t really been a system seller. Also maybe a bit too soon for a new Animal Crossing.
I wonder, if the rumors about the Switch 2 are actually true - which so far I don’t think they are simply because it’s a Boy Who Cried Wolf thing by now - then at some point they ought to start firing up marketing for it. Remains to be seen whether anything official pops up in this, because by you’d think it would.
The good sign -to me- is if they’re still hyping up major Switch games so late in the game, it probably means whatever comes next will be backwards compatible.
I mean i’m sure it’s reasonably far into the development by now. The only questions are, is it going to be backwards compatible with the Switch, and is it coming out next year?
I was thinking they could announced it and say it would be fully backward compatible, so it won’t effect their games sales, but it would still effect their hardware sales, so I guess you are right.
F Zero X remake please. original was already 60fps, so upgraded graphics and the original soundtrack in full stereo and full 30 player online. Sounds good to me.
twitter.com
Aktywne