• Russianranger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’re spot on. The changes we’re seeing are seen as “radical”, as users had previously utilized them on the cheap. Given the recent changes in the overall market, shareholders are making radical demands. So companies have to think of something to pivot.

    When we look at video games, we’ve seen micro transactions creep up, a slow boil if you will, so consumers have adjusted to the increases in these “optional” purchases. Video games overall have been largely stagnant in terms of price per copy. Even accounting for inflation, we’ve really only seen a 20 dollar increase over the years for the raw “license” of a game. Then you add in premium packs and other “optional” nonsense and most have just accepted it.

    I think where people get heartburn on these things is when you introduce such a whiplash of a change with such short notice. I think even if Unity changed the pricing to 2 cents an install starting 2024, then upped it to 5 cents in 2025 and kept it at an incremental increase, it would have been a better “slow boil.” By going outright with the 20 cents per install for the entry level, the market reacted just as radically as the proposed changes.

    While I don’t personally agree with the changes, I can understand through your point why they’re trying it. Late stage capitalism and all that

    • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think where people get heartburn on these things is when you introduce such a whiplash of a change with such short notice. I think even if Unity changed the pricing to 2 cents an install starting 2024, then upped it to 5 cents in 2025 and kept it at an incremental increase, it would have been a better “slow boil.” By going outright with the 20 cents per install for the entry level, the market reacted just as radically as the proposed changes.

      It’s not short notice, it’s negative notice. They’re potentially charging people who haven’t used Unity in years, and had agreed to a completely different set of terms when they did use it. If they’d just made their charges apply to new versions of the engine going forward then people might still have stopped using Unity since it no longer made sense from a business perspective, but there wouldn’t have been the outrage over it that we see now.

      The problem is that Unity is trying to change their agreement with their past customers unilaterally to get more money. In that situation, one penny is too much.

      • Russianranger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re absolutely right regarding Unity. And yeah, going back to pilfer your clients piggy banks is horrible optics.

        The only times I can think of when a company is justified in retroactively requisitioning cash from a client/business partner is when that client/business partner is either A) They (client/business partner) failed to honor their end of the agreement B) They lit your building on fire (i.e. damages)

        Barring those two, not really anything else I can think of that warrants a company saying “oh you also owe us more money now based on your past sales.”

        When I was thinking of short notice, however, I was thinking Reddit.