recycledbits

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Unity themselves have committed to that option (if you don't like our new future TOS, keep the old version and don't update) in writing (that was in their deleted github repo). So it seems extremely likely that they would lose in court.

The key words in the above are 'in court'. If you're an indie unhappy with an x*$.20 charge, chances are a lawsuit will not improve your day.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

You're right, fixed. I think my point is still valid though.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Not even that. More like "stop shouting and give us a few days, we'll change some things, we promise".

[–] [email protected] 92 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Let's look at what are they apologizing for: "for the confusion and angst ... [the policy we announced] caused". Not for the policy itself. Right, "we're sorry you got mad".

And what are they going to do about it? "making changes"

As far as corporate non-apologies go, this is definitely one of them.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's also possible that they can't track new installs either.

FAQ:

How is Unity collecting the number of installs?

We leverage our own proprietary data model and will provide estimates of the number of times the runtime is distributed for a given project – this estimate will cover an invoice for all platforms.

Which is some kind of weird nebulous BS.

They're not saying their engine phones home and/or collects data from end-user devices. With the associated data protection nightmares.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Was Unity lying yesterday or are they lying today?

Yes and yes. It's not an either-or situation.