At last Unity games that will be above the payment border very likely but at the same time made their money already and are now in the "very cheap sale" phase of their lifetime, might follow.

Would be amazing if every single was one pulled, with replacement pages explaining why the game isn't available, and then have customers also bombard them with questions of why the pricing model. Instant zero income.

Hmmm actually wasn't the agreement retroactive? That means to keep from getting charged all unity games not already installed would not be even be allowed to be downloaded. That's going to be a huge problem come the first.

Though if Gabe stepped in and told Unity that is unethical and he would pull everything regardless if they didn't change it.... Hmmm...

I don't think there's any stopping it if the game has been sold. You can stop future sales but you can't stop people re-installing a game they already have.

An unfortunate risk of signing up to be dependent on someone else.

Perhaps the thinking was: We can't compete with Unreal. Let's cash out.

"Only". :D

I know people are different, but I've installed e.g. Planescape: Torment on three different laptops in my household, as I was trying to make up my mind where I will play it mostly.

I have done similar things with many of my Steam games too.

Uhm, their Apple partner
must be the hand moving the cradle...
and their only certain place this control could work...
I wonder if Micro$oft W11 is joining...

Im glad this shakes the vgames engines tree
requiescat to Unity**, long life to the new king
& deserved respect for the self engine made vgames!

** I wasnt its fan anyway :)


As a side note: Review bombing will fall short
compared to all the damage potential this have

Oh, nailed! Here you have :)

very good, if they profit they should pay for stuff they use

Not only on GOG but since we can't check PCGW, here's a very incomplete listt:

https://en.everybodywiki.com/List_of_Unity_games

Note that there are several versions of the engine and we don't know if the new business model applies to every version, wich is unlikelly.

That doesn't help. Even if the game can no longer be downloaded, anyone who already has the game downloaded could still install it.

The whole situation is a mess.
This is why I have a policy of no non-open-source dependencies for any games or other personal projects of mine. (Excluding things like libc, but even that is open source on Linux.)

But not for stuff they don't. In particular, just look at the edge cases, like piracy, or free-to-play games where most installs generate very little to no revenue.

I'd add some more:

- Troubleshooting the bugs is now risky, for it sometimes requires a clean install to find a problem
- Mods are risky, since sometimes they also require a clean install
- Free to play timed offers are now risky (free to play weekends, etc.)
- Free-to-play games are now a huge risk
- Discounting your game too much is now a risk...

Interestingly gambling is exempt from this, the shadiest and most cancerous business model.

This is great! Now people will move to Unreal and it will have complete monopoly on creating A²-A³ games. Even better, a lot of Unity games might be "abandoned" now. Yes, finally!

Goodby and don't let the door hit you on your way out!

Yoohoo, come here you Unreal beast!

How good is Unreal Engine for 2D games? Unity is great for them.

Yes, since the last several years or so the developers get features half-working, and then abandon them and work on something else. At this point the engine really needs to be re-written from scratch.

I'd normally assume this is some kind of troll, but you seem to be firmly convinced of your own ignorance. This is like arguing with a flat-earther, and just as pointless.

They haven't explained how they plan to enforce it at all, DRM-free or not. According to someone claiming to be a Unity employee: I like how they don't "want" to charge for piracy. But they will, since they have no way of knowing what's pirated and what's not. The method is something they have not "completely figured out", because there's no feasible way to do that. The solution will be essentially guesswork, and it will be "conservative," except they're financially incentivized NOT to be conservative. And developers do not have access to any of Unity's methods..."Hey, you had 3 million installs, pay up! You say you only sold 100K copies? Too bad, you just have to trust our numbers, which we aren't giving you." GOG has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. GamePass or similar, yes. Steam, GOG, Epic, any other store: no.

Already told Doc0075 about it in case he has plans for giveaways. Sadly it seems even for him that it is going to be too many games.

Not what I'd have thought of...
But, on that note, is this something that should be rewarded, as in buying more games made in Unity now? Also consider that it may hurt the devs later, for installs made after Jan 1.
And, going further, might it be a publicity stunt, in the any publicity is good publicity sense? It got everybody talking about Unity, and may well lead to a boost in sales of Unity games... And then they may actually go back on it and paint themselves as those who listen to their users. What if that'd be the plan all along? Or at least going for it both ways, carefully monitor the data and stick to this idea if things will die down or go back on it if the short-term benefits of the publicity and longer-term damage from the backlash will outweigh the estimated long-term benefits of the new policy.

That they charge based on the number of copies sold I could understand but charge based on the number of time the game is installed ? Why not based on the number of time the game is started while they are at it.