Will developers be charged the Unity Runtime Fee for subscription-based games?
No, in this case the developer is not distributing it so we’re not going to invoice the developer on subscription-based games (e.g. Apple Arcade, Xbox Game Pass, PlayStation Plus, Netflix Games, etc.)
———
Surely Unity management can’t think this will fly? Surely MS, Apple etc. have contracts with developers that say they have the full rights to distribute the games under some arranged fee structure. Is Unity now just going to go to them and say “Hey, those contracts you have actually don’t give you the right to distribute the parts we own. You’ll have to pay us too!”. That just seems so unrealistic.
And, further, even if that ‘works’ MS, Apple etc. would surely then have a legal case against the developers, who represented that they were assigning full distribution rights to the games, to make them pay anyway.
This all just seems like a giant ill thought through mess, and I think this ‘subscription’ question and answer is indicative of how the entire thing was planned. Is Unity management really so naive that they think this will work? Are they just following the whims of a CEO with no legal input? Did they just not think this through? Are they _trying_ to get all this into litigation?
Usually with things like this, where there’s a lot of online sound and fury, I can make a ‘well, they probably intend for this result, that’s why they’re doing it like this’ judgement. But this just seems like chaos and I am finding it so hard to understand how any of this was decided.
———
Will developers be charged the Unity Runtime Fee for subscription-based games?
No, in this case the developer is not distributing it so we’re not going to invoice the developer on subscription-based games (e.g. Apple Arcade, Xbox Game Pass, PlayStation Plus, Netflix Games, etc.)
———
Surely Unity management can’t think this will fly? Surely MS, Apple etc. have contracts with developers that say they have the full rights to distribute the games under some arranged fee structure. Is Unity now just going to go to them and say “Hey, those contracts you have actually don’t give you the right to distribute the parts we own. You’ll have to pay us too!”. That just seems so unrealistic.
And, further, even if that ‘works’ MS, Apple etc. would surely then have a legal case against the developers, who represented that they were assigning full distribution rights to the games, to make them pay anyway.
This all just seems like a giant ill thought through mess, and I think this ‘subscription’ question and answer is indicative of how the entire thing was planned. Is Unity management really so naive that they think this will work? Are they just following the whims of a CEO with no legal input? Did they just not think this through? Are they _trying_ to get all this into litigation?
Usually with things like this, where there’s a lot of online sound and fury, I can make a ‘well, they probably intend for this result, that’s why they’re doing it like this’ judgement. But this just seems like chaos and I am finding it so hard to understand how any of this was decided.