this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
162 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37716 readers
463 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem is that this hurts developers more than it hurts Unity. And many developers just can't afford switching engines mid-development.
While unfortunate, as a consumer it's the only recourse we have. We don't buy unity, we buy games. I won't buy a game that might just suddenly disappear from a store where I bought it, cause the developer can't or won't carry install fees that may or may not come at any point.
Yes, it hurts developers. Yes, he shouldn't have to suddenly have to pay that fee, but that is out of my control. But I'm still not taking the risk with my money. Unity clearly wants to do this, eventually they probably will.
Let's stop buying games with unity so they have no customers left that can slam with install fees after-the-fact. All we can do.
This right here.
The only way to hurt Untiy is for devs to stop using it. And the only way to force devs to stop using it is to stop buying the games they make with it. I'm sorry it hurts the devs, but there's no way around it. And if you keep giving money to it, then you're supporting what Unity is doing.
So all the effort and money they spent in developing their games, before knowing about this movement from Unity, should be punished?
I understand your intentions, but indie devs don't have the capacity to switch engines, let alone redevelop everything when it's already or almost finished. I'd understand if you do it at the start of 2024.
Also, this is speculation, but I've seen devs provide alternatives to get their games. A lot of developers have already declared their intentions to switch engines from now on and they can't do that if they don't have a budget.
If we buy games from devs so they can afford to switch engines, won't that mean we'll end up with games that won't get updated because the Unity codebase will become obsolete when they switch?
Or is the thinking that devs need to swear that existing licences will work with the game once it's ported to some new engine?
I'd support existing Unity-based games if the devs declared they will port, and that my license will still work once ported. If the particular devs aren't going to leave Unity, I'm not sure I'd be happy to keep supporting them, because that will keep Unity in business, and I think an example needs to be made.
Also, I understand switching platforms will be horribly work intensive, but it's not like it's starting from scratch. If the code can't be ported directly, the logic still can (providing the new platform supports the necessary functionality), and the assets also exist.
Imagine writting a pitch to your publisher trying to explain that you need more money (you know, to survive because we live in a society) because players feel entitled enough to demand you port your game to another engine. That's pretty much how horrible it is. The hard truth is game development is an awful industry for workers which are often expected to work for free. It is really depressing.
They can finish up those projects and then move on to another engine. We shouldn't encourage a hostage situation where we have to stay with an untrustworthy platform just because they have a metaphorical gun to some developers' heads.
So you're saying for them to finish their current unity projects, then for nobody to buy those games so they go out of business before they can start using a different engine for their next game?
Read the full context of the comments you were replying to. What part exactly is confusing?
Yeah, you're still out in left field. If you're telling me that your studio can't handle sub-optimal returns while they swap out one (one!) piece of your development stack, then you have no business being in business.
you've never worked in game dev if you think swapping out your game engine is an even remotely trivial task. you're talking about actual years worth of work to get done. This isn't like throwing out some shitty npm package or changing javascript frameworks. that is the reason so many developers view these changes as an existential threat, because switching engines years into development of a new game simply isn't an option.