Confusing, contradictory terms of service clauses leave potential opening for lawsuits.
So if you’ve published a game, just keep on keeping on. You can sell that game, maintain an older copy of Unity to update it for bugs, even develop new content for that game with the older version of Unity.
I figured this must have been in here. No professional organization would allow a TOS to pass into publishing that allowed a company to unilaterally change fees.
So if you’ve published a game, just keep on keeping on. You can sell that game, maintain an older copy of Unity to update it for bugs, even develop new content for that game with the older version of Unity.
According to the article, probably no.
Many devs may have updated unity and used it for minor updates, but also the clause in question probably doesn’t protect anyone anyway. There’s a broader ToS that supercedes it with much more restrictive language.
This is still up on their FAQ:
Yes, the fee applies to eligible games currently in market that continue to distribute the runtime. We look at a game’s lifetime installs to determine eligibility for the runtime fee. Then we bill the runtime fee based on all new installs that occur after January 1, 2024.
I love that their “proprietary” method of determining installs is to just look at the # of installs reported publicly by Google and Apple app stores.
According to the article, it’s not that simple. This is from the ToS for the Unity Editor, which is subservient to a broader Unity ToS that has much stricter legal language about changing anything without warning and the customer being able to go fuck themselves.
So, yes, technically this bullshit may be completely legal. Devs who were sold Unity on “no royalties” may be forced to pay royalties. Which is definitely healthy for our society and not obviously a problem.
