Unity Technologies has stated that PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo will pay the company's new runtime fee on behalf of game developers.
A new FAQ has been shared by Unity Technologies, which answers questions regarding the company's recent change in pricing plan for its game development engine.
According to the FAQ, the Unity runtime fee will be charged to the entity that distributes
It’s unclear if Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are aware of this particular change in policy, and whether they’d be willing to comply with Unity Technologies.
If they aren’t already paying royalties to Unity on behalf of the devs, then I can almost guarantee they won’t be paying royalties in the future. If they are doing that, then the devs might want to double check their revenue, because that may mean that Unity’s been double-dipping on royalties (taking royalties from distribution through Sony, MS and Nintendo, and then taking them again directly from the devs).
It’s like when CDPR said everyone could get refunds for CP2077 without talking to the stores first, then were shocked when Sony removed it from the PlayStation Store.
Technically, CDPR being based in Europe were just informing people of their stuatory right to a refund within the first 14 days of any digital or online purchase. This highlighted that Sony have been managing to skirt that legislation with their policy’s and not having a proper refund system in place so they threw a wobbler and took the game down. CDPR were in the right, legally speaking, with that one.
Yep, although at least that was a pro-consumer move on CDPR’s part. It’s very understandable why Sony wasn’t happy about it, but it wasn’t a shady move on CDPR’s part. Whereas the same definitely can’t be said for Unity right now.
It’s more, you gotta let your partners know before you announce something major. The reason Sony had to pull it was because they only allow refunds after a certain point on defective games, and they can’t sell a game they know is defective. So the only way they could do blanket refunds is if the game is labeled defective, which means they can’t sell it. Giving Sony a bit of a heads up might’ve meant they could have changed their policy, which would have been better long run for consumers.
Oh absolutely, I agree! I just wanted to point out that CDPR’s move was at least well-intentioned so it’s harder to judge them poorly for it. But you’re right that communication is important in these situations.
He could be the kind of person who writes things down on his vision board, then sends his thoughts out into the universe to make them come true. Like Elon.
Will they tho?
Going into a legal dick measuring match with 3 of the most hardcore litigious corps in the tech world.
Sounds smart.
Nintendoss lawyers right now:
If they aren’t already paying royalties to Unity on behalf of the devs, then I can almost guarantee they won’t be paying royalties in the future. If they are doing that, then the devs might want to double check their revenue, because that may mean that Unity’s been double-dipping on royalties (taking royalties from distribution through Sony, MS and Nintendo, and then taking them again directly from the devs).
It’s like when CDPR said everyone could get refunds for CP2077 without talking to the stores first, then were shocked when Sony removed it from the PlayStation Store.
Technically, CDPR being based in Europe were just informing people of their stuatory right to a refund within the first 14 days of any digital or online purchase. This highlighted that Sony have been managing to skirt that legislation with their policy’s and not having a proper refund system in place so they threw a wobbler and took the game down. CDPR were in the right, legally speaking, with that one.
Yep, although at least that was a pro-consumer move on CDPR’s part. It’s very understandable why Sony wasn’t happy about it, but it wasn’t a shady move on CDPR’s part. Whereas the same definitely can’t be said for Unity right now.
It’s more, you gotta let your partners know before you announce something major. The reason Sony had to pull it was because they only allow refunds after a certain point on defective games, and they can’t sell a game they know is defective. So the only way they could do blanket refunds is if the game is labeled defective, which means they can’t sell it. Giving Sony a bit of a heads up might’ve meant they could have changed their policy, which would have been better long run for consumers.
Oh absolutely, I agree! I just wanted to point out that CDPR’s move was at least well-intentioned so it’s harder to judge them poorly for it. But you’re right that communication is important in these situations.
He could be the kind of person who writes things down on his vision board, then sends his thoughts out into the universe to make them come true. Like Elon.