• Moonrise2473@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    10 months ago

    How can be retroactive?

    I mean legally. The devs agreed to a contract, it can’t be changed with different economic terms later

    If someone published an Unity game 4 years ago, has now abandoned the project, doesn’t release any update, why needs to pay a per install fee “for supporting the runtime”? The version is now ancient. I could understand if it was “from version xx.yy”

    • AeroLemming@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’ve been asking this and never got an answer. I think the answer is that it isn’t.

      • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        10 months ago

        I also asked the question, and got an answer. The hypothesis is that they’ll release new versions under a different license, also meaning that if the devs never agree to the new license, they’d avoid the fee. Of course, that would mean that any engine level bugs in their game would become unfixable. This also means that large developers would be exempt, as they likely have contracts in place that supersede the license agreement.

        • AeroLemming@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          Doesn’t that go directly contrary to what they actually said, though? They explicitly stated that existing games would be affected.

          • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            Could also be. I’m not sure about how the legal situation works exactly. My understanding is that you can’t change a contract, such as a license agreement without the other party’s consent. Maybe they have a clause in it allowing them to revoke the existing licenses, meaning the developers would be forced to agree to the new license or be without a license.

      • AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Im trying to think like a money hungry, out of touch POS CEO here.

        Unity uses a subscription model right? Where each year you have to renew it and agree to new ToS. Well if they just put in their new ToS that companies have to pay retroactive fees and that company “agrees” to those ToS, then that means it’s not illegal since they technically “agreed” to it…

        Hope to he’ll it doesn’t hold up in court but if Unity goes through with this who knows.

        • AeroLemming@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Oh yeah, I was thinking about the income sharing rules when you don’t buy a subscription. The people who need Pro features are fucked.