Unity has temporarily closed its offices in San Francisco and Austin, Texas and canceled a town hall meeting after receiving death threats. The company made the call as a precaution against possible retribution after it announced a contentious change to its business model this week.
“But under the changes announced today, Unity Personal and Unity Pro users will pay fees if they hit $200,000 in revenue in a year and 200,000 lifetime installs. For anywhere from one to a million installs, those users will pay 20 cents per install. “It’s a price increase.”
If I have a mobile game selling for $1 on the apple store for instance and it uses Unity, and has has a million downloads/installs I then owe Unity $200,000 for an app that I didn’t even make $500,000 on because app stores like apple’s charge a 30% cut, sales exist, and it says installs which may mean a person buys the app once and installs it on more than one device. But that doesn’t in any way directly affect my livelihood as a developer or anything. Right?
But there are commercial entity, it’s their right to do so, with thebway thebcurrent laws and market is setup. “The free market will remove them from the equation if they’re not offering an attractive product at an attractive rate, in the face of competitors offering such”… in theory. In practice, I say fuck em. Stop using unity. Stop playing games made in unity. Let them die. A better offering will appear when they are off the table.
Not all replies to you are a direct representation of what you’re hoping people are going to fixate on. That’s not in your control. You may not realize this but we are all equally sentient and have our own thought processes. The rest of us aren’t NPCs…
AFAIK, the retroactive nature of it doesn’t apply to already released games, but to games released with the new license terms. So if you released that mobile game last year, you wouldn’t need to pay $200k or whatever next year. However, if you release that same game next year, you would have to retroactively pay that $200k once the downloads exceeded the stated max.
So the solution is: don’t use Unity next year, especially if you’ll be selling a game for $1. It sucks since in-progress games would have to be reworked, and Unity should suffer for that, but it shouldn’t ever come to threats of violence.
That’s actually fair. But the point is that the popularity of a game could tank a developer with this business model. It could also affect past profits and purchases specifically because of the bit about downloads. It doesn’t differentiate between a user who’s downloaded a paid app on 6 different phones, 1 phone, 1000 phones. So if I for instance paid for I dunno Plants vs Zombies one time, the developer releases it with an update patch, I and then downloaded it onto every phone I have had since then or will have in the future that could be 10,.15, 20 downloads over my lifetime. What if I have a work phone? They’re not saying they can’t implement this even with old games. I don’t think they meant retroactively. I think they mean new installs of old games that have updates.
I guess I’d have to read through the contract, but generally these things only apply to games released after the new terms take effect, but updates to games released prior. So the dev would be fully aware of the policy at the point of releasing the game.
Unity seems to be catering to games with a recurring revenue model (ads, microtransactions, etc), and discouraging other revenue models, and I think most developers will recognize that with this pricing model.
So I don’t think Unity is trying to screw already released games, they’re just trying to limit their appeal to a certain type of game revenue model.
If software you use changes their pricing in a way that, in three month’s time, because you made only $500k last year and your game uses a freemium model such that you get a shitload of installs but don’t necessarily draw revenue from every install, so that that 20c per install adds up to the fact that you’ll be losing money come January, should you threaten the people at that software company with death? At that point, I think no.
If instead of that, they do something more akin to what Reddit did to the Apollo devs, and change the pricing such that they don’t have time to adjust, lie about it, and publicly defame the devs, basically make it literally impossible for the company to stay in business, should Christian have threatened to kill spez? I think no.
If instead of that, they destroy your whole industry, so that you literally can’t work as a software dev anymore, at your game company or any other or in any other software-related industry, and you have to retrain yourself to something totally different, should you threaten them with death? At that point I think it’s a little more of a tactical decision rather than a moral one, because they are crossing that line into “Fuck the system this is wrong” territory, but I would still argue that literally waging war on them wouldn’t accomplish as much as trying to get your democratic government to address the issue some other way.
If instead of that, they created an economic system so that it was impossible for you to get any job, software or otherwise, except back-breaking physical work with a high chance of maiming or killing you, and you still got starvation wages, should you threaten them with death? At that point, maybe; that’s the point we were at in the late 1800s and it’s hard to say it was wrong to fight a small war about it. At that point it’s more about tactics, and the workers in the 1800s didn’t have a tiny fraction of the democratic power you do, so they went to literal war and for the most part it worked in the end.
If instead of that, they ruined your economy and your government, made it so you had no voting rights, could be abused or killed by members of the government of a different racial group who were all super racist against you, so you had the starvation wages and the unsafe labor conditions and also unsafe conditions outside of work and no way out economically and no real democratic way to address the situation, is it appropriate to threaten them with death? At that point, definitely not. Again, blacks in the US and Indians in British India faced that situation, and they decided the only way out was through nonviolent resistance.
Again, I’m not trying to tell you to do nothing. I’m saying death threats are a silly and unproductive thing to do in this case. Somewhere here I posted a video of a guy in Walgreens who felt the policeman was being unfair and got super loud about it to resolve the situation. Death threats, in this situation, I think are gonna have pretty much that level of effectiveness.
If your whole rant is about the death threats I think you missed the point. Because I wasn’t making a point about the death threats. I was pointing out that this particular business model they’re introducing could literally cause the creator of a game to go broke trying to pay it depending on the popularity of their product. That’s broken. And Unity should have known it was broken. And saying they’ve had credible death threats after announcing this plan is to me the same as what Spez did with Reddit after he did the AMA for his API increase and expected no backlash.
I will say this though. I’d rather have death threats that no one follows through with that are “credible” and change a company’s behaviour than have to riot in the streets. Rioting causes a lot of collateral damage to people and places that are not involved. Historically though, the elite create systems where violence slowly but surely becomes the only avenue for change. I’m not saying this is one of them. I am saying this is capitalism and the reason everything is the way it is in the world right now. Rich people wanting to get richer at the expense of poor people.
I was pointing out that this particular business model they’re introducing could literally cause the creator of a game to go broke trying to pay it depending on the popularity of their product. That’s broken. And Unity should have known it was broken.
Yeah, agreed.
Rioting causes a lot of collateral damage to people and places that are not involved. Historically though, the elite create systems where violence slowly but surely becomes the only avenue for change. I’m not saying this is one of them. I am saying this is capitalism and the reason everything is the way it is in the world right now. Rich people wanting to get richer at the expense of poor people.
Yeah, 100% agreed. That’s why I keep talking about real economic injustice and how I feel about it, even though I think applying those tools to this specific situation is way unnecessary.
If your whole rant is about the death threats I think you missed the point. Because I wasn’t making a point about the death threats.
I think you may be the exception then. We’re talking under a headline about death threats, and the reason I was a little salty about it was that it seems like there are a bunch of people here who genuinely think death threats are a good response to this situation, and to me that’s pretty nutty.
If I’m reading this message from you right, we’re pretty much in agreement: This is a sorta shitty situation, and sometimes genuine economic injustice demands radical solutions, but at the end of the day this is a pretty minor issue.
I will say this though. I’d rather have death threats that no one follows through with that are “credible” and change a company’s behaviour than have to riot in the streets.
You do realize that this is exactly how these MAGA hard-core faithfuls think, right? “Well if you’re going to run your bakery / social media company / election in a way I don’t like, I’ll threaten to kill you, because at the end of the day if you change your behavior that’s justified”? You kinda lost me again with this one.
Some are, yes (the Oathkeepers and etc). A lot of them aren’t, though – they’re just making death threats that are “credible” to change someone’s behavior, and a lot of them actually use that exact logic that this is a better way than rising up and having actual violence (with the implication that that’s what’ll happen if the threats don’t change the behavior). But that’s all good with you, right?
I’m just trying to be a jerk about it, I’m just taking you at face value about the things you’re supporting. If that’s offensive, I think you should stop supporting them.
Here’s a question. Do you think the rest that showed up on Jan 6th were just taken in by mob mentality, or?
I have to wonder about the difference here too. If what you’re saying is true, civil rights movements across the world have been little more than people who felt that they were justified to commit acts of violence because that’s the only way to change a behaviour they felt was detrimentally affecting them. And what you’re saying is that’s wrong. But chances are it has a direct effect on your freedoms that you enjoy today. So who’s wrong here? The realist who knows that they may someday be driven to violence because their livelihood or rights are endangered.or infringed, or the person who wants to pretend we live in a world where we can effect change only through non violent means?
And keep in mind that while this particular example of capitalist greed and overreach does not affect rights and freedoms, it is part of a systemic problem that on the whole is detrimentally effecting rights and freedoms as well as people’s ability to live. Because capitalism is all about keeping a class of poor people poor to exploit profits.
I’m also not convinced the threats are that credible. I think that’s a sympathy play. Them trying to be the victim.
Force Protection is used all over the world by governments and militaries literally daily. It is definitely something that humans have been doing for the entirety of their history. And what you’re saying is that you have a sliding scale for what you feel is warranted and what is not. Not that you don’t think that threats should be used. Just that death threats is too far.
Here’s a question. Do you think the rest that showed up on Jan 6th were just taken in by mob mentality, or?
I think people had all kinds of individual intentions and mentalities, but the bulk of the crowd was convinced that American democracy was being overthrown in broad daylight in front of their eyes. They thought that because they’d been systematically lied to in very crafted and calculated ways and weren’t equipped with, or didn’t want to use, the tools that would have let them figure out the truth. That’s what makes the whole thing so incredibly dangerous – it’s actually pretty reasonable to go to literal war if you think American democracy is ending. The problem is that there’s a huge chunk of the country that thinks that, when it’s not true (or… well… not in the way that they think 🥲). And so, lo and behold, they’re steadily becoming more and more willing to go to war.
(And this also gets back to the tactical aspect that I keep coming back to – How Democracies Die has a great breakdown of how to behave in a collapsing democracy, and one of the things that they found through their research is that “cheating” to fight back against the emergent fascist movement that is cheating to steal their power often makes things worse. It accelerates that abandonment of democratic norms and hastens the collapse. In that case, there are a lot of situations where the best thing is to fight back within the system, even when your opponents are going outside the system so you have to fight an uphill battle, to maintain the democracy in the long run.)
If what you’re saying is true, civil rights movements across the world have been little more than people who felt that they were justified to commit acts of violence because that’s the only way to change a behaviour they felt was detrimentally affecting them. And what you’re saying is that’s wrong.
So, I don’t actually think violence is never justified. In some other comment in this thread, I broke down some different scenarios from history where a body of people resorted to different types of resolutions when their rights were being “legally” trampled and what I thought of each one (just from my personal POV). I talked about the labor movement having violent confrontations with police and private security when their economic freedoms were being denied (more accurately, they fought back when attacked with violence). To me I think that was 100% fine.
So one other example that comes to mind is that early night of the BLM protests, when they took over the 3rd precinct and burned it down. This might sound surprising since I have a mostly “pro police” viewpoint, but I actually think that was pretty justified. There’s a severe injustice (you’re killing us in the streets without consequences), it’s been known for a while, we tried nonviolent means of addressing it (peaceful protest, going through the courts), it cannot just remain unaddressed, and it seems like we’re out of options. Okay, fuck it man, if that’s what’s up, then let’s go.
So here’s the distinction: I definitely think there are individual departments that commit genuine atrocities and get away with it. I strongly disagree with the the “that’s every US cop” narrative, but it does happen. And so the distinction is that this was a genuine war crime, and that’s the precinct that did it. It’s hard for me to say people in that precinct should hold a rally within their designated area to chant about how it’s wrong and then go home and hope it doesn’t happen again. I can guarantee that that event changed the calculus of a lot of police and police leadership nationwide in a way that peaceful protest will not.
(Edit: Side note, burning down the precinct was also clearly a crime, and I think they wound up sending someone to prison for 4 years for it. That side of it to me is justified also. If it’s so big an emergency that you claim the right to upend other people’s lives to make things change, it needs to be so big an emergency that it’s okay to upend your own life as a result of making things change. Trying to apply it in one direction but not the other – as a lot of the January 6th people did – is pure, selfish, deluded, dangerous bullshit.)
And keep in mind that while this particular example of capitalist greed and overreach does not affect rights and freedoms, it is part of a systemic problem that on the whole is detrimentally effecting rights and freedoms as well as people’s ability to live. Because capitalism is all about keeping a class of poor people poor to exploit profits.
Yeah, I agree with all that. That’s why I’m being a little careful not to say that this is all just a silly overreaction to a software company’s pricing. But at the same time… I think people should think about what they genuinely want and how to get there. Sending death threats to the Unity offices is, I think, going to:
Maybe scare some individual people that work at Unity
Maybe change the pricing, although I think the fundamental idiocy of the pricing change is more likely to do that honestly
Maybe get you arrested for a felony
Do jack shit to address the underlying economic factors
… and, crucially, it’s going to add one little iota in favor of the idea that if something’s happening that you don’t like, you need to make threats of serious violence unconstrained by a justice framework or a long-term plan. That’s a pretty popular idea right now, mostly from the conservative side, and I don’t think it needs more people to sign onto it.
“But under the changes announced today, Unity Personal and Unity Pro users will pay fees if they hit $200,000 in revenue in a year and 200,000 lifetime installs. For anywhere from one to a million installs, those users will pay 20 cents per install. “It’s a price increase.”
If I have a mobile game selling for $1 on the apple store for instance and it uses Unity, and has has a million downloads/installs I then owe Unity $200,000 for an app that I didn’t even make $500,000 on because app stores like apple’s charge a 30% cut, sales exist, and it says installs which may mean a person buys the app once and installs it on more than one device. But that doesn’t in any way directly affect my livelihood as a developer or anything. Right?
But there are commercial entity, it’s their right to do so, with thebway thebcurrent laws and market is setup. “The free market will remove them from the equation if they’re not offering an attractive product at an attractive rate, in the face of competitors offering such”… in theory. In practice, I say fuck em. Stop using unity. Stop playing games made in unity. Let them die. A better offering will appear when they are off the table.
That’s not what I disputed.
Not all replies to you are a direct representation of what you’re hoping people are going to fixate on. That’s not in your control. You may not realize this but we are all equally sentient and have our own thought processes. The rest of us aren’t NPCs…
Right.
AFAIK, the retroactive nature of it doesn’t apply to already released games, but to games released with the new license terms. So if you released that mobile game last year, you wouldn’t need to pay $200k or whatever next year. However, if you release that same game next year, you would have to retroactively pay that $200k once the downloads exceeded the stated max.
So the solution is: don’t use Unity next year, especially if you’ll be selling a game for $1. It sucks since in-progress games would have to be reworked, and Unity should suffer for that, but it shouldn’t ever come to threats of violence.
That’s actually fair. But the point is that the popularity of a game could tank a developer with this business model. It could also affect past profits and purchases specifically because of the bit about downloads. It doesn’t differentiate between a user who’s downloaded a paid app on 6 different phones, 1 phone, 1000 phones. So if I for instance paid for I dunno Plants vs Zombies one time, the developer releases it with an update patch, I and then downloaded it onto every phone I have had since then or will have in the future that could be 10,.15, 20 downloads over my lifetime. What if I have a work phone? They’re not saying they can’t implement this even with old games. I don’t think they meant retroactively. I think they mean new installs of old games that have updates.
I guess I’d have to read through the contract, but generally these things only apply to games released after the new terms take effect, but updates to games released prior. So the dev would be fully aware of the policy at the point of releasing the game.
Unity seems to be catering to games with a recurring revenue model (ads, microtransactions, etc), and discouraging other revenue models, and I think most developers will recognize that with this pricing model.
So I don’t think Unity is trying to screw already released games, they’re just trying to limit their appeal to a certain type of game revenue model.
If software you use changes their pricing in a way that, in three month’s time, because you made only $500k last year and your game uses a freemium model such that you get a shitload of installs but don’t necessarily draw revenue from every install, so that that 20c per install adds up to the fact that you’ll be losing money come January, should you threaten the people at that software company with death? At that point, I think no.
If instead of that, they do something more akin to what Reddit did to the Apollo devs, and change the pricing such that they don’t have time to adjust, lie about it, and publicly defame the devs, basically make it literally impossible for the company to stay in business, should Christian have threatened to kill spez? I think no.
If instead of that, they destroy your whole industry, so that you literally can’t work as a software dev anymore, at your game company or any other or in any other software-related industry, and you have to retrain yourself to something totally different, should you threaten them with death? At that point I think it’s a little more of a tactical decision rather than a moral one, because they are crossing that line into “Fuck the system this is wrong” territory, but I would still argue that literally waging war on them wouldn’t accomplish as much as trying to get your democratic government to address the issue some other way.
If instead of that, they created an economic system so that it was impossible for you to get any job, software or otherwise, except back-breaking physical work with a high chance of maiming or killing you, and you still got starvation wages, should you threaten them with death? At that point, maybe; that’s the point we were at in the late 1800s and it’s hard to say it was wrong to fight a small war about it. At that point it’s more about tactics, and the workers in the 1800s didn’t have a tiny fraction of the democratic power you do, so they went to literal war and for the most part it worked in the end.
If instead of that, they ruined your economy and your government, made it so you had no voting rights, could be abused or killed by members of the government of a different racial group who were all super racist against you, so you had the starvation wages and the unsafe labor conditions and also unsafe conditions outside of work and no way out economically and no real democratic way to address the situation, is it appropriate to threaten them with death? At that point, definitely not. Again, blacks in the US and Indians in British India faced that situation, and they decided the only way out was through nonviolent resistance.
Again, I’m not trying to tell you to do nothing. I’m saying death threats are a silly and unproductive thing to do in this case. Somewhere here I posted a video of a guy in Walgreens who felt the policeman was being unfair and got super loud about it to resolve the situation. Death threats, in this situation, I think are gonna have pretty much that level of effectiveness.
If your whole rant is about the death threats I think you missed the point. Because I wasn’t making a point about the death threats. I was pointing out that this particular business model they’re introducing could literally cause the creator of a game to go broke trying to pay it depending on the popularity of their product. That’s broken. And Unity should have known it was broken. And saying they’ve had credible death threats after announcing this plan is to me the same as what Spez did with Reddit after he did the AMA for his API increase and expected no backlash.
I will say this though. I’d rather have death threats that no one follows through with that are “credible” and change a company’s behaviour than have to riot in the streets. Rioting causes a lot of collateral damage to people and places that are not involved. Historically though, the elite create systems where violence slowly but surely becomes the only avenue for change. I’m not saying this is one of them. I am saying this is capitalism and the reason everything is the way it is in the world right now. Rich people wanting to get richer at the expense of poor people.
Yeah, agreed.
Yeah, 100% agreed. That’s why I keep talking about real economic injustice and how I feel about it, even though I think applying those tools to this specific situation is way unnecessary.
I think you may be the exception then. We’re talking under a headline about death threats, and the reason I was a little salty about it was that it seems like there are a bunch of people here who genuinely think death threats are a good response to this situation, and to me that’s pretty nutty.
If I’m reading this message from you right, we’re pretty much in agreement: This is a sorta shitty situation, and sometimes genuine economic injustice demands radical solutions, but at the end of the day this is a pretty minor issue.
You do realize that this is exactly how these MAGA hard-core faithfuls think, right? “Well if you’re going to run your bakery / social media company / election in a way I don’t like, I’ll threaten to kill you, because at the end of the day if you change your behavior that’s justified”? You kinda lost me again with this one.
I don’t agree with the Maga statement. Mostly because from what I have seen they actually are frothing at the mouth for violence.
Some are, yes (the Oathkeepers and etc). A lot of them aren’t, though – they’re just making death threats that are “credible” to change someone’s behavior, and a lot of them actually use that exact logic that this is a better way than rising up and having actual violence (with the implication that that’s what’ll happen if the threats don’t change the behavior). But that’s all good with you, right?
I’m just trying to be a jerk about it, I’m just taking you at face value about the things you’re supporting. If that’s offensive, I think you should stop supporting them.
Here’s a question. Do you think the rest that showed up on Jan 6th were just taken in by mob mentality, or?
I have to wonder about the difference here too. If what you’re saying is true, civil rights movements across the world have been little more than people who felt that they were justified to commit acts of violence because that’s the only way to change a behaviour they felt was detrimentally affecting them. And what you’re saying is that’s wrong. But chances are it has a direct effect on your freedoms that you enjoy today. So who’s wrong here? The realist who knows that they may someday be driven to violence because their livelihood or rights are endangered.or infringed, or the person who wants to pretend we live in a world where we can effect change only through non violent means?
And keep in mind that while this particular example of capitalist greed and overreach does not affect rights and freedoms, it is part of a systemic problem that on the whole is detrimentally effecting rights and freedoms as well as people’s ability to live. Because capitalism is all about keeping a class of poor people poor to exploit profits.
I’m also not convinced the threats are that credible. I think that’s a sympathy play. Them trying to be the victim.
Force Protection is used all over the world by governments and militaries literally daily. It is definitely something that humans have been doing for the entirety of their history. And what you’re saying is that you have a sliding scale for what you feel is warranted and what is not. Not that you don’t think that threats should be used. Just that death threats is too far.
I think people had all kinds of individual intentions and mentalities, but the bulk of the crowd was convinced that American democracy was being overthrown in broad daylight in front of their eyes. They thought that because they’d been systematically lied to in very crafted and calculated ways and weren’t equipped with, or didn’t want to use, the tools that would have let them figure out the truth. That’s what makes the whole thing so incredibly dangerous – it’s actually pretty reasonable to go to literal war if you think American democracy is ending. The problem is that there’s a huge chunk of the country that thinks that, when it’s not true (or… well… not in the way that they think 🥲). And so, lo and behold, they’re steadily becoming more and more willing to go to war.
(And this also gets back to the tactical aspect that I keep coming back to – How Democracies Die has a great breakdown of how to behave in a collapsing democracy, and one of the things that they found through their research is that “cheating” to fight back against the emergent fascist movement that is cheating to steal their power often makes things worse. It accelerates that abandonment of democratic norms and hastens the collapse. In that case, there are a lot of situations where the best thing is to fight back within the system, even when your opponents are going outside the system so you have to fight an uphill battle, to maintain the democracy in the long run.)
So, I don’t actually think violence is never justified. In some other comment in this thread, I broke down some different scenarios from history where a body of people resorted to different types of resolutions when their rights were being “legally” trampled and what I thought of each one (just from my personal POV). I talked about the labor movement having violent confrontations with police and private security when their economic freedoms were being denied (more accurately, they fought back when attacked with violence). To me I think that was 100% fine.
So one other example that comes to mind is that early night of the BLM protests, when they took over the 3rd precinct and burned it down. This might sound surprising since I have a mostly “pro police” viewpoint, but I actually think that was pretty justified. There’s a severe injustice (you’re killing us in the streets without consequences), it’s been known for a while, we tried nonviolent means of addressing it (peaceful protest, going through the courts), it cannot just remain unaddressed, and it seems like we’re out of options. Okay, fuck it man, if that’s what’s up, then let’s go.
So here’s the distinction: I definitely think there are individual departments that commit genuine atrocities and get away with it. I strongly disagree with the the “that’s every US cop” narrative, but it does happen. And so the distinction is that this was a genuine war crime, and that’s the precinct that did it. It’s hard for me to say people in that precinct should hold a rally within their designated area to chant about how it’s wrong and then go home and hope it doesn’t happen again. I can guarantee that that event changed the calculus of a lot of police and police leadership nationwide in a way that peaceful protest will not.
(Edit: Side note, burning down the precinct was also clearly a crime, and I think they wound up sending someone to prison for 4 years for it. That side of it to me is justified also. If it’s so big an emergency that you claim the right to upend other people’s lives to make things change, it needs to be so big an emergency that it’s okay to upend your own life as a result of making things change. Trying to apply it in one direction but not the other – as a lot of the January 6th people did – is pure, selfish, deluded, dangerous bullshit.)
Yeah, I agree with all that. That’s why I’m being a little careful not to say that this is all just a silly overreaction to a software company’s pricing. But at the same time… I think people should think about what they genuinely want and how to get there. Sending death threats to the Unity offices is, I think, going to:
… and, crucially, it’s going to add one little iota in favor of the idea that if something’s happening that you don’t like, you need to make threats of serious violence unconstrained by a justice framework or a long-term plan. That’s a pretty popular idea right now, mostly from the conservative side, and I don’t think it needs more people to sign onto it.