I’d like people to make a distinction between AI and machine learning, machine learning and neural networks (the word deep is redundant nowadays). And then have some sense of different popular types of neural nets: GANs, CNN, Transformer, stable diffusion. Might be nice if people know what is supervised unsupervised and reinforcement learning. Lastly people should have some sense of the difference between AI and AGI and what is not yet possible.

ChatGPT with plugins already does this. Nothing controversial here.

Of course you’re going to be right at first and very wrong in the long run.

Finally, someone who actually makes arguments! :)

I can fully imagine that some people who counted on the old business model are really fucking bummed out by this change, need to rethink their business strategy and feel forced with their back against the wall. That has got to be a major pain in the ass and disappointment.

I am unsure why Unity is making this change. Perhaps they are just greedy bastards, perhaps they need it to survive or perhaps something in between. Regardless, if you would be in Unity’s position and would want to do this change then I don’t see a way an easy way around it. Even if they’d decide that older versions are licensed in the old way, then that would potentially mean you’d get a whole bunch of people sticking to an old version, which of course opens up a whole new can of worms that they might have good reasons for not wanting to open up.

While everyone is up in arms and hating on Unity my entire point was only to say that the business model that they are proposing isn’t unreasonable. Paying per installation. People are acting like it is totally unreasonable to charge for the number of installs, as if Unity isn’t a core ingredient of all those shipped products. It seems like people lose critical thinking skills when they get emotional.

This is not to say that it doesn’t suck monkeyballs for those affected. I use a free ferry service quite often where I live. It’s great and it would suck ass if the municipality would start charging for it, but I wouldn’t pretend that it is totally unfair that they decided to ask money for it.

PS some person accused me of using ChatGPT while directing their Unity hate onto me, but I truly don’t, so I am keeping my wall of text because I think it gets my point across more effectively.

If you don’t see the problem of arbitrarily having to pay more than you earn using a shady number from their ass I won’t be able to convince you.

Again no argument.

Ok, whatever dude. I made a whole bunch of quality arguments, refuted all of yours thus far and you’re now only just repeating that it is stupid. I am truly and honestly willing to change my mind if you can come up with a good point that I’ve not thought of, but I’m not going to spend anymore time on you make until you make an argument.

And it’s not only you. I’ve debated the lot of you. Not a single good argument thus far. Just a bunch of haters who like to name call and tell me that it is stupid or that I am stupid without actually being able to properly provide reasoning for that claim. So at the risk of being the emperor without clothes, it just seems to me that a whole bunch of gamers love hating on Unity without actually understanding why this business model is actually not unreasonable because it threatens the status quo.

Never mind then. Have a good life.

In your altered (before it was a race driver?) car rental company analogy, the developer would be the car rental company and Unity the car company? This would mean the developer would rent Unity to its users? Still not making any sense dude.

Apart from analogies. Here are some facts.

1. A commercial game is a product made by a developer
2. Unity is a tool that can be used by developer to make commercial games
3. Unity is also a part of what makes the product work and is shipped with the product.
4. Unity itself is a commercial product

Take any other kind of commercial product that is shipped along with a commercial product. Is it unfair to charge based upon the number of times that product is shipped?

Honestly I didn’t. Have a nice life, I’ll not be responding anymore.

Didn’t use ChatGPT, but you’re the first person to accuse me of that. Funny times :)

Unity isn’t only a tool. Unity is also an ingredient. It’s shipped with the product and is an integral part of what makes the product work. Most OEM deal out there also depend on usage.

You want to ship a product with Neo4j (or any other software developer) under the hood? Go make an OEM deal with Neo4j and I’ll bet you it is going to be some deal that will be proportional to the amount of usage your product is going to get. Which is only fair of course.

Your race car driver analogy makes no sense by the way. A developer makes a product and that product is shipped many times to a lot of people. You could think of Unity as a pizza bottom and a pizza oven. The developer puts stuff on top, bakes it in the oven and then it is shipped to people. The developer has to pay for the pizza bottom and the cost of the tool will be discounted. The developer charges a price such that after subtracting the cost of the pizza bottom there will be a nice profit. Profit and cost will be proportional to the amount of pizza’s eaten.

Proportional does not mean one equates the other. It means that while one goes up, the other goes up as well. It’s not going to be some constant factor and it’ll depend on the game, but you should expect that for every license you may have a handful of installs. You simply need to account for that. If you would have to come up with a mathematical function that estimates the number of installs your game is going to have and you know the amount of users, would you use the amount of users as a coefficient in your function? If so, then that means it is proportional. If not, then please enlighten me how you would guess the number of installs without the number of users.

Now the next question is, is it fair? Why not? One business model will be the license model, but another business model could be based on usage. Perhaps long time users are buying in-game items, doing upgrades, looking at ads, are willing to shell out extra money for different devices, etc. Unity’s business model should work for all business models in such a way that they can be paid their dues. Also, the more a game is used the more demand this puts on the developer for upgrades, bug/security fixes, supporting other devices, etc. This demand will translate into demand on Unity, which makes it only fair that Unity gets payed some amount based on installs.

If I get payed 40 cents every time it is opened this isn’t a problem. He can open it as many times as he wants. I’ll happily pay the 20c and keep the rest as profits. If my income is proportional to usage and my costs are proportional to usage there is no problem. I don’t see why this could not hold for games or for PDFs?

The bottom line: if somehow you’ve made a game and it is installed a lot, but you don’t make enough money off of that such that you can’t pay your suppliers then you’ve just failed at commerce.

A friend of mine failed at commerce once. She had a clothing store. In the clothing business you’ve got seasons. So typically shop owners buy a whole lot of clothes in bulk for the entire season. Her shop didn’t survive the economic down turn of 2008/2009. So she was left with huge amounts of clothes and an enormous bill to pay, which she had to default on. Unity’s business model is extremely mild compared to that industry. I also still fail to see how it is not fair.

That’s only fair if I am making three pennies for every single time someone downloads that document. Microsoft Office made it possible and so the deserve a share.

If it’s a free game then you shouldn’t be using a commercial engine. If you do use a commercial engine in a commercial setting then you need to make sure that you make a profit after you’ve payed your costs. This is not different from any other type of commercial enterprise.

If you are going to go with an ad based model for your game, like you suggest, then you should be able to make a profit if enough people use your game, which should be somewhat proportional to the amount of installs. People aren’t just going to install your product and never use it. What could happen of course is that they use it once or twice and determine it’s total crap and then don’t spend any time actually playing it, so not enough ads can be displayed. In that case you should indeed delist the game, because it isn’t viable. This should be easy to track based on the number of downloads and ads revenue. But of course if your game is crap then you can also expect people to not download it in the first place, so it isn’t a very realistic scenario. If your game is slowly becoming more popular, like you suggest, then you should be able to make enough of of it to pay your dues.

Perhaps what could happen is that you manage to stir up an incredible amount of hype around your game. A ton of people download it and then simultaneously determine it is crap without listening to game reviews and such. However, in this case I can hardly imagine that the business model was ad based revenue when you’ve got the marketing budget to stir up such a hype.

Nevertheless I wouldn’t say it is completely out of the realm of possibility to get cornered by Unity’s business model, or any third party business model as of fact, but it’s unlikely if you think it through. And that is actually part of the risk of entrepreneurship that you need manage. A friend of mine also had a clothing store and bought a bunch of clothes that in the end she couldn’t sell and needed to default on her payments. It happens. The clothing store industry is much harder than the game industry: you need to buy everything up front and then hope that you’re going to be able to sell it.

Unless you’re dealing with a liberal open-source license, you can’t just expect to go out into the world and use somebody else’s work without having to deal with these types of issues. And that is just fair, if you’d ask me.

Yes, if I would make more than 20 cents of of it, let’s say 40 cents, and the company that I am paying to is offering a major service to me that would make it otherwise near impossible for me to make such a PDF, then sure.

ChatGPT4 made some good points:

Here are some factors that have contributed to the increasing polarization:

Historical Context: From its inception, the U.S. had deep political divisions. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists were sharply divided over the creation of a strong central government in the late 18th century. Over time, issues like slavery, states’ rights, and industrialization caused significant rifts.

Two-Party System: The U.S. predominantly has a two-party system. This tends to create a binary choice for voters, which can exacerbate polarization. Over time, as parties realign and consolidate around specific issues or identities, divisions can become more pronounced.

Media Landscape Evolution: The rise of cable news in the 1980s and 1990s, and later the internet and social media, has played a role in deepening polarization. News outlets and platforms can cater to specific ideological niches, leading to echo chambers where viewers are only exposed to information that reinforces their preexisting beliefs.

Gerrymandering: The practice of redrawing electoral districts to favor one party over another can create “safe” districts where politicians are more worried about primary challenges from their own party’s extremes than about general election threats from the opposing party. This can push politicians further to the left or right.

Campaign Finance: The way campaigns are financed, especially after decisions like the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, allows for significant amounts of money to be poured into politics. This can give disproportionate influence to certain groups or individuals, potentially exacerbating polarization.

Cultural and Social Shifts: Factors such as urbanization, education, and changes in religious affiliation can contribute to political polarization. As these shifts occur, they can create a sense of cultural war or identity politics, further dividing groups along political lines.

Political Leadership: Leaders can either bridge divides or deepen them. At various times, American leaders have taken adversarial stances that have contributed to the climate of polarization.

Economic Inequalities: Growing economic disparities can exacerbate feelings of disenfranchisement and lead to increased polarization. People may feel that the “other side” doesn’t represent their interests, leading to a lack of trust in opposing parties or politicians.

Geographic Polarization: There’s an increasing trend of people living in areas that are politically homogenous. Urban areas tend to lean Democratic, while many rural areas lean Republican. This geographical sorting reinforces political beliefs and reduces exposure to opposing views.

Feedback Loop: As polarization increases, trust in the opposing party decreases, leading to a feedback loop where compromise becomes increasingly difficult.

While polarization in politics is not unique to the U.S., the combination of the aforementioned factors has made it particularly pronounced in recent decades. However, history also shows that the country has faced deep divisions before and has found ways to address or move past them. The challenge is understanding the underlying causes and working towards remedies that can foster dialogue and compromise.

Then I asked if capitalism, may have something to do with it also.

Yes, capitalism and its dynamics can certainly play a role in political polarization. Here’s how:

Economic Inequality: One of the criticisms often levied against capitalism, especially in its less-regulated forms, is that it can lead to significant economic inequality. As wealth accumulates among the top echelons of society, those left behind can feel economically and politically disenfranchised. This can lead to resentment and division, with political factions forming around pro-business interests and worker or populist interests.

Consumer Culture and Identity: Capitalism’s emphasis on consumerism can influence how people see themselves and others. As products and brands become intertwined with identity, political beliefs can also become commodities to be marketed and sold. This can further entrench people into particular ideological camps.

Media Commercialization: In a capitalist system, media outlets are often profit-driven. This can lead to sensationalism or the creation of echo chambers, where outlets cater to specific political or ideological demographics to maintain and grow their audience.

Corporate Influence in Politics: With capitalism, especially in systems where campaign finance regulations are lax, corporations and wealthy individuals can exert significant influence on political processes. This can lead to perceptions (or realities) that politicians cater to corporate interests over those of the average citizen, fueling distrust and polarization.

Globalization and Job Displacement: Capitalism’s search for efficiency and profit can lead to phenomena like outsourcing. This can result in job losses in certain sectors or regions, leading to economic anxiety. Politically, this can manifest in protectionism, anti-immigration sentiments, and a polarization between those who see globalization as an opportunity versus those who see it as a threat.

Differing Economic Philosophies: Capitalism, as an economic system, isn’t monolithic. There are varying degrees and types of capitalism (e.g., laissez-faire capitalism vs. welfare capitalism). These differences can lead to political divisions, with some advocating for more government intervention in the market and others pushing for less.

Financial Crises: Episodes like the 2008 financial crisis can exacerbate political divides. In the aftermath of such events, there are often debates about the role of regulation, corporate greed, and government bailouts, which can further polarize public opinion.

So my take is that the binary choice in politics created a major issue straight from the start. Life is too complicated to put in just two categories, but in the US you seem to manage it. And these political boundaries are very much geograhpy based too, which makes of makes it easy to cater to the polarization, which made it easy to maintain. Then you add to that a culture that favors capitalism and now you’ve got the beginnings of a dumpster fire. Voters can be treated as consumers and consumers as voters. Perhaps the age of mass media is where it really started to go wrong. Essentially you end up with news channels such as Fox news which send out a lot of propaganda for the republic party. Once you’ve got a good proportion of your population in a brainwashed state you’re in a pretty bad spot.

Well, I am just going by what their own official statement is:

“We are introducing a Unity Runtime Fee that is based upon each time a qualifying game is downloaded by an end user. We chose this because each time a game is downloaded, the Unity Runtime is also installed.”

https://blog.unity.com/news/plan-pricing-and-packaging-updates

But the link that you sent indeed sounds a lot more vague. It’d be a major mistake on their part if they are not going to be transparant on how they are going to do the counting.

Would you pay 20ct every time you open a pdf ? Why not then ?

No, but I would pay for a PDF reader based on the number of times I install this PDF reader if for some reason this PDF reader offers features that I can’t get from some open-source tool. Especially if that means I get support, bug fixes, support for different devices and the like, which Unity does. This is not an uncommon model at all.

Good question.

Let me ask you the reverse with a hypothetical: imagine that you spend a great deal of time building a library for generating realistic engine sounds, like this guy. Now you make an OEM deal with Sony and your work goes into the next version of Gran Turismo. Now let’s say everybody loves the new version, because of the great engine sound and a number of other awesome features. Would you want your work to be rewarded by how much value Sony extracted from it? You would right? (otherwise tell me why not and we’ll have that discussion, but I can hardly imagine you’ll say no to this)

Then put yourself in Unity’s position. It’s not one company you’ve got to track, but perhaps hundreds of thousands. New ones popping up, old ones dying without a trace. You want to be rewarded for your continuous effort based on how much value people are getting from your product. This is only reasonable, right? Now you’ve got to come up with a way to do that. So one way to do that would be to track the revenue of each developer and charge a percentage. This is mission impossible. Perhaps you can do that with the larger companies, who are less likely to forge data and easy to get hold of, but you’ve got thousands on thousands of developers that are making peanuts or making just enough that are one man shops. There is also no reliable way to get accurate revenue data from developers across the world. You can’t just ask the tax office of the Philippines or Norway for income statements of random developers. So instead they use a heuristic, which is very common by the way. The heuristic goes like this: revenue ∝ usage ∝ installs ∝ downloads (∝ means “is proportional to”, but in this context I think it would be better to say: “correlates highly with”) .

Now if you proof to me that downloads does not positively or significantly correlate with revenue made then I’ll agree with all the people who feel they need to hate on Unity right now, but the way I see it this isn’t an unreasonable business model.

One last thing. It is an oversimplification to say that Unity doesn’t have any cost to usage. Sure once the binaries have been built, there are no costs to those binaries being copied across the globe, but more usage means more demands on the developer, which translates to demands on Unity to make sure their engine works well on all platforms and devices and is able to keep up with the queries and demands of the developer. Imagine just having to QA the Unity engine; it’s gotta be an enormous undertaking. They’ve got to offer active support on a number of versions (n) of their platform for a number of platforms (m) and supported devices/hardware (o). That makes n^m^o combinations that could cause issues and then still that is an oversimplification. A game that is used a lot is going to hit a lot of these combinations and that’ll certainly translate into a lot more work for Unity to ship updates. So I would even argue that usage ∝ costs.