Hacker News Reader

Comment by LoganDark | Hacker News Reader

They can't ever introduce any revenue sharing because they promised not to do that and would be immensely vulnerable to lawsuits if they ever went back on that promise. This was their attempt to do something that doesn't technically count as revenue sharing.

View on HN

Yeah I agree with you on this. This might have been the CEO too proud to not go back on his strong words against revenue share. That said the alternative they presented is a really stupid alternative. I don't think anyone has argued that Unity shouldn't be able to make money or increase their fees if necessary, but they should have followed their word on "stay on the terms you signed up to" and not do such a crazy version of fee increase as they did (install fee is a really stupid metric and that the install fee didn't have a roof was really bad).

They had already promised to abide by the terms of the license in force at the moment it was agreed to, so the fact that they promised not to do something does not stop them, apparently.

Someone who agreed to a prior version of the license will always be able to abide by that version of the license. The fact that they removed the provision going forward is just them trying to lock-in future customers.

No, it was a plan to lock in current customers that didn't look into license every time they updated engine.

That's why they removed the repo too, too easy to see the changes.

Whatever, a plan to lock in anyone who accidentally "agrees" to the new terms. You know what I meant.

I just wanted to highlight it wasn't for just new customers like you wrote but potentially every game in development using Unity. That's a massive difference.

Now they kind of did though. Since you can pick between 2.5% and paying the install fee.

Also I’m not sure how are “promises” legally binding unless they are part of a contract?

> Also I’m not sure how are “promises” legally binding unless they are part of a contract?

You'd be surprised. Claims that are made as part of any marketing material or promotion can absolutely result in lawsuits if someone built their business on that claim and then Unity screwed them over. In that way at least, Unity is liable for the things that they say in a public capacity.

Most contracts I've seen have clauses that specifically say that you are agreeing that the contract is limited to the terms in the contract itself and waiving everything else so you are probably out of luck there.

It’s known as promissory estoppel. The main reason promises are often not binding is that you can’t prove the other party said it. If you can prove the other party said it, and you “reasonably” relied on their statements, and suffered damages because their statements were false, you can recover those damages from them.

(IANAL)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com