|
Top-level
@akien @Emi I totally agree with you. I have the opinion that many just overreacted to the news. At the same time I don't think that Unity decision is just pure greediness. If a game is making $200000 with more than 200000 installations, it'll be *honest from my side* to pay the tool that's making this possible. We could discuss if $0.20 for installation is too much, anyway. That being said, developers should show their appreciation by supporting (with $$$) even FOSS products like Godot. 15 comments
@redblacktree @akien @Emi Mmm... I don't think the example is fitting. With Visual Studio you are paying for a tool. The runtime, in this case, is Windows (or the OS, anyway). You don't have to pay for that. With Unity you are paying a fee to use and distribute the runtime, much like when you pay for installing an OS an and embedded device (WindowsCE, for example). @mode13h @Tom_ofB @redblacktree @akien @Emi Well... you don't need to use the Visual C++ Redistributable Package. It's been years but I've developed many application w/o using it and depending *only* on native Windows libraries. But you are right when the redistributable package is used (as MFC did, IIRC). Sorry for the oversight. @mode13h @akien @Emi I think the issue is distrust. Someone brought up that the installation fee is really per "installation", not per "purchase", so if I buy a game, then reinstall it three 3, I just cost the developer 60 cents. This could be used for malicious intents (there's people out there). Furthermore, someone raised the flag that this sounds like Unity is implementing spyware in games without developer's consent (or end-users). @TheMarshmallowBear @akien @Emi Unity has clarified this point, only single purchase are counted (multiple installs of the same don't sum up). Spyware? It they would be using some kind of DRM it would be only reasonable. We are all protesting about it (i.e. DRM) since... ever! :D @TheMarshmallowBear @akien @Emi I just think there's a lot of confusion at the moment. :) @mode13h @TheMarshmallowBear @akien @Emi How do they “count the purchase” of a DRM-free game bought on GOG without getting numbers directly from GOG? How do they differentiate a game bought in a Humble Bundle (that they claimed to not include)? How do they count installs for a WebGL game? How do they count installs for a Gamespass game? @mode13h In any case, I hope this will help Godot, but also that there won't be many people surprised by Godot's current state or way of doing thing because they didn't look into it too deeply before switching.  @mode13h I don't think it's an overreaction and I don't think the money is the main issue I agree paying for the tools you use is good The trouble is going to your customers and saying "oh by the way, you owe us a bunch of money now " If the fee was there from the beginning? That's fine, they can budget for that After the fact? Bit shit because now companies have to rebudget and find that money Plus, what's to stop them from adding other fees in the future? @mode13h my thought is that from the beginning this fee should have only applied to new projects. Existing projects should have been grandfathered into the old system @Wearwolf You are right (in this and your previous reply). I also think that existing projects should be excluded from the fee (and I *hope* that's the case). |
Gregory's Server
@mode13h @akien @Emi Imagine the same revenue model applied to Visual Studio. Should every piece of software pay indefinitely for the tools used to create it?