Wait, is Unity allowed to just change its fee structure like that?

Confusing, contradictory terms of service clauses leave potential opening for lawsuits.

See full article...

 

[SplatMan_DK]

Afaik, Unity runtime doesn't have a "phone home" capability. Number of installs can be approximated by looking at the metrics of Steam/Play Store/App Store and so on.

What I hear is that based on those rough metrics (because those need to comply with GDPR), they will use "internal models" to estimate total install numbers. In other words, developers will be billed on a "trust me bro" basis.

New versions of Unity are packed with cloud-based statistics and data, which is presented to each developer/publisher through a web based dashboard.

While this isn't true of older versions, I am sure all this collected data - even while anonymous for end users - can be used as a basis to track usage and payment.

 

[TwoKiloBalls]

This will end badly for Unity. Really surprised they don't see this. Yeah their profits will go up for a few years but then nose dive when companies move to other engines.

 

[SplatMan_DK]

Also, while IANAL, I hope EU judges would just laugh Unity out of court for their attempts at retrospective contract changes.

The EU does many good things, but it rarely touches B2B affairs unless they indirectly affect consumers.

 

[truth serum]

I don't see how this is a GDPR issue (and I work with the stuff on a daily basis). The game data collected by Unity is unlikely to be personally identifiable. A unique ID for each installation is not a GDPR issue if it cannot be used to tie it to a specific named individual.

The runtime tracker is merely a Trojan horse for their in-house ad-tracking spyware. It's the whole reason they are doing this. I'm pretty sure the information to identify a unique user is there. Whether or not it is buried under enough layers of plausible deniability is another matter.

 

[SplatMan_DK]

The runtime tracker is merely a Trojan horse for their in-house ad-tracking spyware. It's the whole reason they are doing this. I'm pretty sure the information to identify a unique user is there. Whether or not it is buried under enough layers of plausible deniability is another matter.

It's only a GDPR issue if they can turn that unique ID into the identity of an actual person. If they can't do that, then the GDPR is not relevant.

Edit to add:
I see lots of downvotes, and that's fine. You're entitled to do that off course. But bear in mind that I work with this in a professional capacity and I am not just pulling this out of my *ss. It is a professional assessment provided by someone working in the field. No amount of "disagree-downvoting" is going to change that. The EU directives are as they are. If you want to claim I am materially wrong then by all means cite whatever articles and directives you feel support your case. I can highly recommend EUR Lex and EDPB as primary sources, so it might me a good idea to start there.

I get concerned when I see how popular posts here, getting many upvotes, are materially wrong. Misconceptions about EU legislation are not a popularity contest.

 

[Carewolf]

I don't see how this is a GDPR issue (and I work with the stuff on a daily basis). The game data collected by Unity is unlikely to be personally identifiable. A unique ID for each installation is not a GDPR issue if it cannot be used to tie it to a specific named individual.

You could say the same things about a cookie, it would be the exact same thing. So they need to inform the user about it, and give them a way to opt out.

 

[TimeWinder]

This will end badly for Unity. Really surprised they don't see this. Yeah their profits will go up for a few years but then nose dive when companies move to other engines.

Maybe. Right now, their stock is way down on the announcement, and I don't see it coming back up while devs keep announcing they're dropping the engine. I don't think there's even short-term profitibility in the cards here, except for some already-shipped-but-still-generating-lots-of-sales stuff like Subnautica being forced to suddenly pay for every new install of a game released a couple years ago.

Which I wouldn't pay, if I were in their shoes, so it depends on how much legal is going to cost.

Remember, if a game has made $200K + in the year ending 1/1/2024, and has over 200K installs ever (both of which are almost certainly true for some of the only-a-year-or-two-old Unity games), you're suddenly going to start getting bills you have literally no way of avoiding (because even pulling the game from stores won't prevent the fees from (re-)installs of current owners) and that weren't in the contract when you released the game. Any decent lawyer is going to have a field day with that.

 

[TVPaulD]

I don't see how this is a GDPR issue (and I work with the stuff on a daily basis). The game data collected by Unity is unlikely to be personally identifiable. A unique ID for each installation is not a GDPR issue if it cannot be used to tie it to a specific named individual.

The thing is, how can anyone know? They claim they intend to start doing this in less than four months but they haven’t explained a damn thing about the data they’re tracking or how, only that it’s (allegedly) not a phone home on install.

 

[thawking]

If you want to build a restaurant on a proven model and infrastructure, then you pay a franchise fee and a cut of sales...otherwise, feel free to try your luck starting from scratch!

"Hey, it's John from UnityBurger here. Remember that franchise restaurant you opened a decade ago? Well, now you have to pay us $0.20 for everyone who's ever walked through the door. How do we know how many people have walked through the door? Look, we just do. Anyway, here's a bill."

 

[graylshaped]

This will end badly for Unity. Really surprised they don't see this. Yeah their profits will go up for a few years but then nose dive when companies move to other engines.

The massive sell-off of shares by key executives tells us they are okay with that. Nor would I be surprised to see Apple, Microsoft, et al, pull Unity games from their distribution channels. Apple was more than willing to cut off Epic's cash grab with Fortnite.

 

[SplatMan_DK]

You could say the same things about a cookie, it would be the exact same thing. So they need to inform the user about it, and give them a way to opt out.

No. That is incorrect. Absolutely not the same thing.

First of all the cookie consent laws are separate from GDPR. But, more crucially, cookies are almost always tied to some kind of user account - for the site you are visiting or for whatever external partners the site shares data with (like Google or Meta).

Running a mobile game on a phone won't expose your user data unless the game is specifically designed to do so. Most aren't. So the game has no way to identify the end user. The opposite is true with cookies: converting that ID to a named user is trivial.

I am not a lawyer, but my job forces me to work with GDPR compliance. I have a very anti-tracking attitude, so this isn't a defence of Unity or any other company tracking its customers. But the law is what it is. Collection of anonymous data is not a problem as far as GDPR is concerned.

 

[xoe]

No. That is incorrect. Absolutely not the same thing.

First of all the cookie consent laws are separate from GDPR. But, more crucially, cookies are almost always tied to some kind of user account - for the site you are visiting or for whatever external partners the site shares data with (like Google or Meta).

Running a mobile game on a phone won't expose your user data unless the game is specifically designed to do so. Most aren't.

How do you know most aren't? And given the vagueness of what Unity has said, it's entirely possible that most Unity games are, even without the developer knowing it.

 

[SplatMan_DK]

The thing is, how can anyone know? They claim they intend to start doing this in less than four months but they haven’t explained a damn thing about the data they’re tracking or how, only that it’s (allegedly) not a phone home on install.

It's a phone home on use, intended to give developers insight into how the game is played. They essentially made their own version of Microsoft Application Insights.

The purpose is not to track users centrally, or collect data on installs. But it's a nice side effect that's easily exploited by execs.

 

[SplatMan_DK]

How do you know most aren't? And given the vagueness of what Unity has said, it's entirely possible that most Unity games are, even without the developer knowing it.

Google and Apple don't allow that data to be shared unless it's declared. It's part of the apps permission. Both will also happily deny the app in their stores unless there is a good reason for asking the user for that permission.

Most games, by default, don't ask for account details. So the only other way to get it, is to make a log-in requirement within the game itself. Some do that, but they're a minority.

I am not sure how it's done on consoles. Perhaps account details are shared there.

 

[xoe]

Google and Apple don't allow that data to be shared unless it's declared. It's part of the apps permission. Both will also happily deny the app in their stores unless there is a good reason for asking the user for that permission.

Most games, by default, don't ask for account details. So the only other way to get it, is to make a log-in requirement within the game itself. Some do that, but they're a minority.

I am not sure how it's done on consoles. Perhaps account details are shared there.

There's also pc's.

 

[TimeToTilt]

it’s worth remembering that companies put unenforceable (even illegal, occasionally) stuff in their tos all the time. most courts recognize that for contract law to be viable, it has to be reliable. if companies are allowed to get to cutesy with contracts, the whole system falls apart.

Right this. Every contract in the world says the corporation can do anything it wants to and that's true... Until someone tests it in court.

 

[Siosphere]

The massive sell-off of shares by key executives tells us they are okay with that. Nor would I be surprised to see Apple, Microsoft, et al, pull Unity games from their distribution channels. Apple was more than willing to cut off Epic's cash grab with Fortnite.

Pretty sure it was not a huge amount, and in line with how much they sold each month for the last several years.

This is from a clickbait article headline and isn’t true.

They’re shitty for other reasons, but they aren’t selling massive amounts of shares.

 

[TheBaconson]

it’s worth remembering that companies put unenforceable (even illegal, occasionally) stuff in their tos all the time. most courts recognize that for contract law to be viable, it has to be reliable. if companies are allowed to get to cutesy with contracts, the whole system falls apart.

I was going to mention this may fly in the US but other places the TOS is meaningless.
There is going to be all sort of overseas legal issues for them as well now.

 

[TimeWinder]

I signed up for an online class for Unreal Engine. In the welcome lobby for that single class alone for a single day are maybe 7-10 "Unity Refugees"--experienced Unity devs abandoning the platform for Unreal.

I'm an independent, but more interestingly, I'm hearing from industry people with fairly advanced projects (a year or more work already complete) that are either strongly considering or have already decided to switch engines to something else.

When you've made a blunder so bad that people are willing to throw away man-years of already existing work rather than continue the relationship with you? That's impressive. Some of these will be near ground-up re-writes. (Luckily, assets can often be transferred).

This is going to be disastrous for Unity if they don't stop letting this fester and take some serious corrective action quickly. And maybe even then; I'm hearing a lot of "there's literally nothing they could do now to restore my trust."

 

[CuriousCatBoy]

That can be a big 'if' depending on circumstances. Committing to an engine is like committing to a language -- sure, you can change the language your application is written in, but, at best, it'll be a pain in the butt, at worst, you have to throw everything out and start over.

Remember, people picked Unity in the first place, usually for very good technical and financial reasons. Swapping out has a cost far beyond financial. That's why developers are talking about cancelling projects outright -- it's a pretty major emotional blow to look at something you've committed blood, sweat and tears into, only to realizes you might have to start over because somebody decided to screw you over.

One thing I haven't seen (and don't know if the numbers are available) is whether there's a breakdown in revenue between small developers (who wouldn't be affected), medium developers (who would be affected and can least afford it) and large developers (who pull in enough money that this is a negotiating issue, not an existential crisis.) It could very well be that Unity has decided to write off everybody except those largest developers, especially if they represent almost all the pie. It's still an immoral dick move, but at least you can see some justification for it as opposed to all this crap happening because somebody bet on the 1 in 10,000 chance that everybody would have just shrugged their shoulders and gone back to work.

This is why one should never agree to click-through licenses for software critical to one's business. Including Darth Vader clauses stating that one can alter the deal at any time by just posting new Ts & Cs, and having "you've accepted these terms by using the software" are a red flag that the supplier has reserved the right to screw you over.

That said, there are other problems. It's a good final exam question for a contracts class: how many defenses can you find against this contract's revised terms?

However, the real problem is that it's really stupid from a pure business perspective. Unity makes their money from repeat business. As many have pointed out, angering your customer base is a good way to lose sales. Lose enough sales, and bankruptcy results. Bad move, Unity.

 

[chronoss2022]

Companies do not give a shit about you. They exist only to make money. Your trust is useful to them insofar as it makes them money. If they can make more money by betraying your trust, betray it they will.

LOL THEY GIVE AN ABSOLUTE SHIT WHEN VAST MAJORITIES OF PEOPLE GO
"NOPE NOT USING THIS NOT PAYING FOR OR BUYING INTO THIS BULLSHIT"

AND
This is what happens in every industry when instead of a person that actually does what the company does
they have nothing but lawyers all over the top...whom just try and use law and loopholes to trick and rip everyone of every last bloody dime

too many lawyers in this case not enough game dev people running shit.

 

[OOPMan]

You'd think this was a ploy to try and wring some money out of Mihoyo (now Hoyoverse) whose cash cows (Honkai Impact 3rd, Genshin Impact and Honkai Star Rail) are all built on Unity and regularly rake it eye-watering amounts of money...except it seems like China qualifies as a developing market and hence Hoyo would only have to pay anywhere between $5k and $10k per 1 million installs.

Frankly, this is like trying to shake down a rich man for a penny and accidentally shaking down a bunch of beggars for all they're worth in the process.

 

[kilkenny_cat]

You should take a look at the posts on GOG. Remember that GOG sells DRM-free games and all game-owners can download a full stand-alone install independent of GOG Galaxy. I buy many single-player games for GOG and install them freely on several computers I own.

See:- https://www.gog.com/forum/general/unity_new_pricing_model/page1
and go from there. I particularly like the comment from GOG subscriber "bjgamer" which I quote below:

"Well I would think this is a very poor business decision on the part of Unity.

Let's actually think a moment what enforcement in the broader sense could cost them ...
1) Steam, Epic, Gog and other game sales sites could pull all Unity engine games to avoid paying the fees;
2) Which leads publishers to stop publishing games with the Unity engine because no one will sell them;
3) Which leads developers to stop developing games with the Unity engine because no publisher or vendor will take them;
4) Which only leaves the small recreational only indie dev with not enough sales or money for Unity to even try to sue ...
5) Which leaves Unity bankrupt with legal fees trying to pursue what they can't enforce, and with no future; and
6) a whole lot of backlash and hate from gamers angry that their games were pulled.
And good luck trying to track down and file lawsuits to get fees from the gamers themselves every time they boot up a Unity game they've already paid for, downloaded and installed.

I am thinking some hot-shot marketing VP sold this to some don't-have-a-clue boardroom types without really looking at possible ramifications."

 

[TVPaulD]

It's a phone home on use, intended to give developers insight into how the game is played. They essentially made their own version of Microsoft Application Insights.

How do you know? Unity themselves point blank refused to say what the data they are using to calculate installs is, or what the calculation itself entails. And they heavily implied it is multiple data sources, you are accounting for only one that you assume is at play.

 

[Wolvenmoon]

What do you think will happen if Unity charges the distributors?

Simple: The distributors will immediately drop all games using Unity from their storefront. And refuse submission of new Unity-based games.

Who will lose? Definitely not the distributors as they still sell a bunch of games NOT using Unity.

Gamedevs who use Unity will still get the L

This is absolutely one way it could go down if they drop an invoice in front of distributors, but I think it's also likely that the distributors' legal teams would laugh so hard they'd pull a rib and sue and win a personal injury suit before they sued and won the suit over the actual bullshit fee.


My legal team as a solo dev getting started, on the other hand, is too busy not giving me the squeaky ball because allowing me to take it from them is against the law, it's only legal to throw it, and occasionally laying on their backs and looking at me upside down to effectively litigate this issue. Which is probably why Unity foisted this on the devs rather than on the distributors, because no matter what, the distributors would win.

 

[graylshaped]

This is absolutely one way it could go down if they drop an invoice in front of distributors, but I think it's also likely that the distributors' legal teams would laugh so hard they'd pull a rib and sue and win a personal injury suit before they sued and won the suit over the actual bullshit fee.


My legal team as a solo dev getting started, on the other hand, is too busy not giving me the squeaky ball because allowing me to take it from them is against the law, it's only legal to throw it, and occasionally laying on their backs and looking at me upside down to effectively litigate this issue. Which is probably why Unity foisted this on the devs rather than on the distributors, because no matter what, the distributors would win.

"Squeaky ball" is one I haven't heard before, but I think I gather your gist.

 

[panton41]

"Squeaky ball" is one I haven't heard before, but I think I gather your gist.

Squeaky Ball of the law firm Squeaky Ball, Chew Bone and Piece Of Rope.

 

[Carewolf]

No. That is incorrect. Absolutely not the same thing.

First of all the cookie consent laws are separate from GDPR. But, more crucially, cookies are almost always tied to some kind of user account - for the site you are visiting or for whatever external partners the site shares data with (like Google or Meta).

No, they are not separate laws. They are the same set of laws. And you don't need to tie a cookie to a user account to need to request permission. The whole point of cookies is to create an ad-hoc "user-account", a way to identify a user without them logging into an account.

Thing about it, for just a second. Unity claims now that they can tell reinstalls from first installs. How do they do that? They need either a fingerprint of your computer (personal identifiable data) or to leave behind a marker (or cookie if you like) on the computer.

 

[nbm]

I have to think that the number of Unity games released after July of next year will be very close to 0. l don't see how Unity wins the class action over retroactivity. If I were a shareholder I'd be suing them too over completely pissing away the better part of $14 billion. Though I might have to wait until they actually lose it, which might not be for another year or two.

 

[nbm]

A lot of people keep bringing up GDPR. I wonder what would happen if everyone who's ever bought a unity-based game in Europe sent them a request for all the information they have. And if I ask them to delete all the data they have on me, does that change how they bill people? Seems like they would have trouble detecting that my reinstall wasn't a new user if they've deleted any data they have on me and my machine.

 

[Korios]

Doesn't the Unity CEO have a track record of not liking Devs because they choose to make games and not focus on squeezing every dime out of their playerbase,, has some issues with sexual harassment toward his female employees, and right before dropping this turd on the community, he sold some of his Unity holdings. Sounds like a great boss and human being...

Since Unity is a public company I predict the SEC might like him for insider selling, since that's exactly what it is.

 

[SplatMan_DK]

How do you know? Unity themselves point blank refused to say what the data they are using to calculate installs is, or what the calculation itself entails. And they heavily implied it is multiple data sources, you are accounting for only one that you assume is at play.

Some years ago I applied for a job as a teamlead in their customer data analytics team. They have a large Dev site in Copenhagen because the company started here originally. I'll see if I can find the job ad, but obviously information from the actual interview round is only in my head.

For someone working in IT, with a past as a dev and BI buff, it wasn't hard to understand what they were doing. They were offering extremely detailed insight to developers, as an added service, and trying to make revenue on top of that (with analytics offerings).

It's pretty obvious to me that if you start collecting that data and shovelling it into your own datawarehouse instead of just sharing it with developers, you have all the data you'll ever need to approximate the install base with a pretty decent accuracy.

 

[Korios]

There is a large enough portion of the investment market which is gambling on stock price changes instead of actually investing in companies. Because they make their money buying and selling, the only thing they care about is the price going up soon so they can sell it. Increased revenue now beings up the price now, that is the only thing they care about. As they no longer own the stock in the future, who cares about what happens to the company in the future.

Or going down if they have shorted the stock. Shorting is riskier but (can be) more profitable. And it will be a thing for as long as borrowing stocks is allowed, since it's inherently tied to stock borrowing.

 

[Bilateralrope]

Some years ago I applied for a job as a teamlead in their customer data analytics team. They have a large Dev site in Copenhagen because the company started here originally. I'll see if I can find the job ad, but obviously information from the actual interview round is only in my head.

For someone working in IT, with a past as a dev and BI buff, it wasn't hard to understand what they were doing. They were offering extremely detailed insight to developers, as an added service, and trying to make revenue on top of that (with analytics offerings).

It's pretty obvious to me that if you start collecting that data and shovelling it into your own datawarehouse instead of just sharing it with developers, you have all the data you'll ever need to approximate the install base with a pretty decent accuracy.

Only if Unity know what they are doing with the data they have collected.

Their refusal to explain how makes me think that, while they have the data, they don't know how to extract information from it.

 

[SplatMan_DK]

No, they are not separate laws. They are the same set of laws. And you don't need to tie a cookie to a user account to need to request permission. The whole point of cookies is to create an ad-hoc "user-account", a way to identify a user without them logging into an account.

Thing about it, for just a second. Unity claims now that they can tell reinstalls from first installs. How do they do that? They need either a fingerprint of your computer (personal identifiable data) or to leave behind a marker (or cookie if you like) on the computer.

All they need is a hardware ID of the device; which is available on all major platforms. Sometimes locked away behind a permission , but it's a less controversial permission than most others, so few people care. They don't need to leave anything behind - if you factory reset the device, the hardware ID will not change.

You can't infer the owner of the device though, and you can't tell if the device has switched hands and has a new owner since last install. You also can't re-use that ID to identify the same user across multiple devices or websites - as you can with browser cookies.

In regards to Cookies vs GDPR, please please please don't offer advice when you honestly don't know what you are talking about. I work with this sh*t and I assure you: you are entirely mistaken.

Cookie consent laws were introduced with E-privacy Directive 2009/136/EC several years before the GDPR.

GDPR was introduced with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC. It has been updated several times since then, with the final consolidated version being the active one.

While many issues with tracking consumers through cookies obviously means that these regulations interact heavily and often, they are absolutely not the same. You must observe both, but they have separate areas of relevance.

 

[SplatMan_DK]

There's also pc's.

Off course. The reason I didn't mention them is because I assume the methods used on a PC are well understood and easy to work with. Everybody here understands that tracking PC users is a breeze compared to a walled garden like iOS, consoles, Chromebooks, etc.

 

[SplatMan_DK]

Only if Unity know what they are doing with the data they have collected.

Their refusal to explain how makes me think that, while they have the data, they don't know how to extract information from it.

I honestly doubt that is the case. The hiring process did not give me the impression that they were clueless.

Making a COUNT DISTINCT () on an id column is hardly rocket science. Adding a GROUP BY statement for developer accounts is just as easy.

I assume they are being vague and obfuscating things because they don't want to draw attention and criticism to their practice. The less information the world has, the harder it is to criticise.

 

[malor]

I saw a post recently from someone purporting to be a Unity staff developer, which said the troops have no freaking idea how to count installs accurately.

Per that source, they can come up with a number, but an accurate one is not likely. And management was told that in no uncertain terms, but rolled out the new policy anyway.

Whoever the person was listed themselves as an ex-Unity staffer; they apparently quit shortly after the announcement.

 

[SteveDave_au]

Only if Unity know what they are doing with the data they have collected.

Their refusal to explain how makes me think that, while they have the data, they don't know how to extract information from it.

Well that means you're one step ahead of me.

Because I'm still not sure exactly what they (think) they have?