Unity: We have to charge for every install because we only see totals. Also Unity: We can tell which install is which, so you won’t be overcharged.

  • Mereo@lemmy.ca
    3·
    2 years ago

    The whole thing seems rushed because the CEO of Unity, John Riccitiello, was the leading advocate of microtransactions when he was at EA, and now he is instilling the same culture at Unity.

    How will they differentiate between pirated copies and legitimate copies? How will they distinguish first-time installs from repeat installs? Can we trust their algorithm? It just doesn’t seem possible.

    • Big P@feddit.ukEnglish
      3·
      2 years ago

      If there was a foolproof way of checking for a pirated copy they wouldn’t be making a game engine they’d be making DRM

      • Ertebolle@kbin.social
        2·
        2 years ago

        It may have been more like:

        Unity: “We love money and hate our customers, who can we hire to realize that vision?”

        EA CEO: “Finally, a job that understands me”

    • ampersandrew@kbin.social
      1·
      2 years ago

      You can usually tell a unique machine apart from another via MAC address, but even that has issues, and that’s giving Unity the benefit of the doubt when they haven’t earned it.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      0·
      2 years ago

      I’m not sure why they hired him.

      “Hey we’re looking for a new captain, why don’t we go for the guy who repeatedly sails into rocks? He’ll be good.”

      • Obi@sopuli.xyz
        2·
        2 years ago

        Unfortunately a story as old as Wall Street. CEOs designed and hired to kill companies are a thing.

  • Platform27@lemmy.mlEnglish
    2·
    2 years ago

    Lying about collecting that data, because they do (and I block it). Not lying, but backtracking on everything else.

    • nothingcorporate@lemmy.todayOP
      2·
      2 years ago

      You’re right, they’re absolutely collecting data, but saying they can’t differentiate between activations and then saying “oh yeah, actually, we can when it comes to (piracy/bundles/charity/etc.)” less than 24 hours later tells me that not only do they not care about game devs, but they think we’re stupid too.

      • dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de
        1·
        2 years ago

        It also tells me that this is the first time their internal devs have heard about these plans. This is the C-level‘s wet dream, not something they have actually implemented yet.

        But hey, it can’t be that hard, can it? The code monkeys should be able to get it to work in three months, right?

      • Platform27@lemmy.mlEnglish
        1·
        2 years ago

        There’s a couple of ways to block it.

        1. Via an application Firewall, which will run on your PC. Safing’s Portmaster works on both Linux and Windows. Objective-See’s LuLu is a good Mac option. Both of these tools are free and open source.

        2. If you know Unity’s IPs, you could block it in your firewall. I’m guessing you do not. Though, with a little work, it can be done.

        3. If you can’t do either, you could at the very least block it at the DNS level. This will stop the software getting those IPs. It doesn’t really work if the IPs are already baked into the software, but that is incredibly unlikely in games. A great configurable DNS provider is NextDNS. If you have the know how to self-host a Pi-Hole or Adguard Home are great options.

        There’s also ways to analyse that traffic, which I won’t go into here.

  • Bellatired@beehaw.orgEnglish
    1·
    2 years ago

    The fact that they went forward with this decision means they’re not so wise at lying. It sounds more like last-minute damage control, but I doubt this will stop their greed. What I’m wondering now is how will the Chinese game companies react? Everybody get your popcorns ready.

  • dom@lemmy.ca
    1·
    2 years ago

    Ok so if they are now only charging for the first install, why aren’t they just charging an extra fee per sale? Wouldn’t that accomplish effectively the same thing? (And actually work out in unity favour since not everyone who buys a game downloads it)

    • Veraxus@kbin.social
      1·
      2 years ago

      Because they realize that a huge number of their customers are small indies, and they want to be able to squeeze them - the majority of their customer base - not just the minority of big companies (who are also the most likely to fight back legally).

      Just look at how their scheme squeezes smaller, poorer developers way more than big ones. If Unity went by points like, say Epic does with Unreal, they could shake down the big developers… but wouldn’t get much out of the indies.

    • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl
      0·
      2 years ago

      I believe “first install” means “first install on that device”. If you buy the game and install it on five computers (Steam family sharing ftw) that would mean five installs. After that, you would be able to remove and reinstall the game as much as you want on those devices.

      No idea how they would implement that, though.

      • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
        0·
        2 years ago

        That’s probably pretty negligible numbers. In fact I’d suspect that the number of people who buy a single copy that they then install on multiple devices is lower than the number of people who buy a game and never play it.

        It’s also much simpler to implement and the numbers are verifiable. Unless… that’s exactly what Unity wants; just “trust me bro this is the correct number” kind of deal.

        • narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee
          1·
          2 years ago

          People eventually upgrade their computers. Swapping out mainboards and/or reinstalling Windows probably counts as a new device.