177
Unity ring in the new year by firing 1,800 people in the name of "long-term and profitable growth"
(www.rockpapershotgun.com)
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
177 points (97.3% liked)
PCGaming
6321 readers
1 users here now
Rule 0: Be civil
Rule #1: No spam, porn, or facilitating piracy
Rule #2: No advertisements
Rule #3: No memes, PCMR language, or low-effort posts/comments
Rule #4: No tech support or game help questions
Rule #5: No questions about building/buying computers, hardware, peripherals, furniture, etc.
Rule #6: No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
Rule #7: No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts
Rule #8: No off-topic posts/comments
Rule #9: Use the original source, no editorialized titles, no duplicates
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why do you keep pushing this strawman that Unity/devs shouldn't make money? Literally no one thinks that. The crux of the issue is not that anyone thinks Unity should change their name to UNICEF and start donating their resources to the public; it's that they're charging exorbitant fees, and doing so in a shitty and exploitative manner.
You are the only one who doesn't seem to understand this but a quick Google search will clear that right up for you because there is no shortage of publications, developers, or individuals explaining how completely batshit insane and unsustainable their monetization model suddenly became.
I'm not convinced it's a strawman, people are offended by the fee structure, and I don't think you need to look very far to see that. I don't agree with the fee structure or how they did it, but you can make the case that fees did need to increase.
Your responses are reading with some emotion, so I hope this isn't offending you. I think we probably agree in general that Unity's leadership did a shitty thing, but all I'm saying is it's more complicated than most people give it credit. Neither of us speak for groups of people, so let's do our best to not make assumptions of each other.
You're right, people are offended by the fee structure. That's not the same as saying Unity shouldn't be profitable and devs shouldn't be paid.
I am "emotional" because you're defending one of many corporations with garbage ethics and an insatiable appetite for ever-increasing profits, only this time they boiled the frog too quickly and are suffering the consequences.
I am "emotional" because you are right, it was a very popular and accessible gaming engine and they've run it into the ground trying to squeeze cash out of their consumers.
There is no shortage of other ways they could have increased revenue but they chose the most scummy avenue possible.
Well in either case, I'm not your enemy. I'm interested in defending the people that make Unity possible and are passionate about enabling game developers. Having a discourse where people share insight is much more valuable than emotional pointing at the problem, you know?
Anyone who makes up strawmen to misrepresent criticism while defending shitty corporations is absolutely my enemy. (That's you)
I'm sure none of the devs are responsible for the fee structure and they don't deserve to be the targets of any criticism, and to my knowledge, they aren't.
If you have some insight to share, please do go ahead. I'm dying in anticipation.
My hands are up, don't shoot! 👐
It's OK to be angry, and in a lot of ways you should be. Nothing I say is going to convince you of anything, so keep on fighting the good fight.