I only just googled them, but they do look quite different. I assume some are specialised in 2D games, platformers or role playing or mobile games. Godot seems to be the most sophisticated engine and supports 2D as well as 3D.
Haven’t tried any of those other ones you mentioned, but i can vouch for Godot, it’s pretty amazing (granted, i’m not a professional developer, but Godot has worked great for my hobby projects)
“We leverage our own proprietary data model and will provide estimates of the number of times the runtime is distributed for a given project – this estimate will cover an invoice for all platforms.”
Estimating how many copies you sold based on your own ‘data models’ which is impossible to track? Isn’t that like a giant red flag for laundering money?
Yeah I don’t understand how that works. Will that even stand up to a lawsuit? Wouldn’t they have to give up stuff in discovery if a game company sues to find how they were billed?
I think it’s crazy that they want to write invoices based on estimations. Why didn’t I ever do that? “Oh yeah, I estimate that I worked about um… 2 weeks on that feature.”
We are not going to charge a fee for reinstalls. The spirit of this program is and has always been to charge for the first install and we have no desire to charge for the same person doing ongoing installs.
Someone tell them they can achieve the latter much more effectively if they simply charge once FOR EACH COPY SOLD.
Hmmm… but then what about humble bundle sales or freemium games? Maybe the charge should change depending on the price of the game…
OH WAIT THAT’S REVENUE SHARE. Seriusly this whole thing is just an attempt at taking more money than devs would be willing to pay, by using a model without an up front percentage.
This whole thing is absurd and overcomplicated - they could have just copied Unreal and slightly undercut them.
It isn't too complicated, but for example, a game which made $2 million in gross revenue would owe Epic Games $50,000, because it would pay 5 percent of $1 million, keeping the first million entirely—minus whatever other fees are owed, such as Steam's cut.
There should also absolutely have been a grandfather clause for games already released.
I get Unity needs to make money. They've never been profitable. But they've seriously overcomplicated the whole thing and gotten people angry at them.
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.
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.
Are MAC address even shared ocer IP? as I understand MAC is for routers and other equipment to connect themselves, what MAC address are they going to receive? The one of the PC or the one of my router?
The game could read the Mac address and send it. It would probably violate GDPR because it’s not required for the game to perform its function, but it’s technically trivial.
Except iOS will randomize its mac adress at each boot / after a while to prevent users being tracked by rogue WiFi networks, which is actually a thing being used to track consumers in commercial spaces etc. So that wouldn’t work.
I think this is rather about checking the MAC “from the inside”, as a program running on the computer. This will work on a PC, as I think neither Windows or Linux systems restrict reading the MAC addresses of network interfaces and such, by default at least. On phones, I don’t know. But the point is that now the “attacker” is not on the wifi network you want to connect to, but inside your computer, and wifi mac randomization is worthless. Not just that they might have access to the original MAC of the wifi interface, what about the MAC of other interfaces like the cellular data interface or ethernet (over USB, when its supported), and then theres tons of other info too by which they can identify the device.
Well, if your mac address changes every time you connect to a different network, Unity would be detecting and billing for a lot of false positives, so it would be a bad method to identify unique devices.
There is still a lot of questions. How many components can I change and it still be the same computer and not a new computer? If I replace one component every two months after about a year I’ll have a new computer I’ve kind of ship of Theseused may way to a new rig. At what point would I have to buy a new licence?
If I don’t ever have to buy a new licence in that scenario why do I have to buy a new licence if I buy a new computer outright, it’s functionally the same difference.
The MAC address is the address of the network card, which can be either built into the motherboard, or on a replaceable card… so if that was the only thing they tracked, you could replace everything except that… unless you have a network card with an editable MAC (they don’t need to be unique worldwide, only on the network they directly connect to).
Microsoft seems to use a slightly different system, where they’d generate a sort of hash for all the components, then allow a limited number of changes per year, so you can change the while computer a limited number of times a year… but they call home all the time.
My phone at least has a setting where I can choose what it does regarding a MAC address.
It can either use a randomised MAC address or it can use the MAC address of the router itself (can’t really see why you’d ever want to do that). So while I am sure traditionally the MAC address comes from the network card it’s clearly not the only way to derive one.
Also I’m almost positive that I went to change my graphics card and that changed my MAC address. It was years ago so I can’t remember the details but I remember it causing some problems with some work software until I realised that’s what had happend and just remapped the licence.
The MAC address is the Ethernet address of a network card endpoint, whether fixed or not. Multiple network cards, multiple MAC addresses. A single network card can also respond to more than one MAC address, or use randomized ones like in the case of your phone. They still tend to come with a factory fixed one, that is just used as a default when nothing else is changing it.
it can use the MAC address of the router itself (can’t really see why you’d ever want to do that)
That’s… are you sure is what it says? There are MDM managed networks where a router can push an MDM profile to a device, and set its MAC that way, maybe it’s something like that?
A graphics card “shouldn’t” have a MAC address… unless it has an output which can push Ethernet traffic (FireWire, HDMI HEC, etc.). A bit weird to have a licence locked to the GPU’s whatever-port MAC, but possible.
It’s also possible that they can’t track new installs either.
FAQ:
How is Unity collecting the number of installs?
We leverage our own proprietary data model and will provide estimates of the number of times the runtime is distributed for a given project – this estimate will cover an invoice for all platforms.
Which is some kind of weird nebulous BS.
They’re not saying their engine phones home and/or collects data from end-user devices. With the associated data protection nightmares.
Oof. This is corporate lingo for “we’ll pull a number out of our ass and charge the dev accordingly”. “Proprietary data model” makes it clear they intend to remain conveniently (for them) opaque about it.
So does this mean every single unity game will have unity online drm now? Or how else will they be able to tell? Seem so much more convenient to take a cut from sales instead
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Also Steam Deck - every install and uninstall is considered a new computer. That’s true for Linux gaming using Proton in general, but the rest of Linux gaming is not as relevant.
The only major reason I can think of is people playing on PC and Steam Deck, using the cloud save to play on both. Sometimes I want to play the same game on the big screen and sometimes in bed.
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.
Which is the opposite of what smart companies like Adobe do. You facilitate the small players in hope that they grow big and keep using your products at a larger scale.
lemmy.today
Active