Nobody Cares: Gaming Edition

[Dakota Tebaldi]

I don't like this, and here's why.

This comic is obviously about Starfield (if you didn't know that consider yourself lucky) and I'm not going to talk about Starfield; but I am going to say that a whole lot of the talk about Starfield is in the form of like, rape and death threats to the developers, and to people who openly say they like the game (if the threatener doesn't like the game) or don't like the game (if the threatener does like it), and it's not just a few people, it's not a very small minority that just happens to be loud, it is a whooooooole lot of the visible conversation - like, easily most of it that I've seen. And development teams surprisingly often have to resort to things like...appealing to the fact that they're humans with feelings who want to make a living and not get killed over a video game, just in an attempt to pour water on the burning hot trash-fire of internet commentary. And of course this always upsets people who think they have legit like technical complaints and aren't satisfied with a "think about our feelings" answer from what they see as a faceless, soulless corporate machine.

But this kind of thing - acting like it's a matter of people just being mildly disappointed and timidly bringing up concerns and then being condescended to by the developers, and expressing more but entirely reasonable and still-mild disappointment in response - it kind of ignores what the actual wider conversation looks like, or pretends really really hard that it doesn't look that way. But it does; and while I don't know if the person who drew that comic is actually one of the violent-threatening-arglbargl types or not, part of the problem is that what you see in that comic right there IS exactly the image that many of the worst people have of themselves and their grievance inside their own heads even while they're saying that they hope someone firebombs Bethesda's office for putting pronouns or too much fast-travel in Starfield.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Who knows, IANAL, but I don't think you can just change a license like that without a signature or anything. Oh, sorry if you don't like it but you owe us $100000 per download after January 1st. Sorry if you never saw this change in our agreement.

IANAL either but I kinda think you're right about that, and I'd be like, intensely interested to see what happens if I-A-AL's get involved...

 

[Jolene Benoir]

I don't like this, and here's why.

This comic is obviously about Starfield (if you didn't know that consider yourself lucky) and I'm not going to talk about Starfield; but I am going to say that a whole lot of the talk about Starfield is in the form of like, rape and death threats to the developers, and to people who openly say they like the game (if the threatener doesn't like the game) or don't like the game (if the threatener does like it), and it's not just a few people, it's not a very small minority that just happens to be loud, it is a whooooooole lot of the visible conversation - like, easily most of it that I've seen. And development teams surprisingly often have to resort to things like...appealing to the fact that they're humans with feelings who want to make a living and not get killed over a video game, just in an attempt to pour water on the burning hot trash-fire of internet commentary. And of course this always upsets people who think they have legit like technical complaints and aren't satisfied with a "think about our feelings" answer from what they see as a faceless, soulless corporate machine.

But this kind of thing - acting like it's a matter of people just being mildly disappointed and timidly bringing up concerns and then being condescended to by the developers, and expressing more but entirely reasonable and still-mild disappointment in response - it kind of ignores what the actual wider conversation looks like, or pretends really really hard that it doesn't look that way. But it does; and while I don't know if the person who drew that comic is actually one of the violent-threatening-arglbargl types or not, part of the problem is that what you see in that comic right there IS exactly the image that many of the worst people have of themselves and their grievance inside their own heads even while they're saying that they hope someone firebombs Bethesda's office for putting pronouns or too much fast-travel in Starfield.

Interesting. I've been hearing only good things about Starfield. Of course, I'm sure some will compare to the Elder Scrolls series and Fallout, but again, I've heard only good. Now, if they've got some microtransactions scheme worked up, I would understand, but I know very little other than people talking about putting a pause on other games so that they may play Starfield as in they are very eager to do so.

To be fair, I'm usually well behind the loop when games come out. I'm often years behind, waiting for kinks to be ironed out, proper reviews (some developers not allowing reviews until they've gotten their early sales sours me on that, or even changing the game after all the early reviews are in), and of course, because I'm patient. I've got a large backlog and a game would have to be superextraordinary for me to be an early buyer.

If it's the usual complainers about anything lgbt, pronouns, women, people of color...well, they can just fuck right off, as usual.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Unity doing the Open Gaming License after watching a company step on that kind of rake.

 

[Noodles]

Iit's not just a few people, it's not a very small minority that just happens to be loud, it is a whooooooole lot of the visible conversation - like, easily most of it that I've seen..

(Hogwarts Legacy has left the chat...)

 

[Essence Lumin]

 

[Erich Templar]

This is playing out almost exactly like WOTC/OGL debacle.

 

[detrius]

This is playing out almost exactly like WOTC/OGL debacle.

A lot of these companies and their user base are in what could be called an "eye-level customer/service relationship".

Imagine running a grocery store in a small farming community: every farm is growing wheat and barley, so the people are buying their salads, potatoes, apples, eggs, milk etc. from you, and your shop is the only one of that kind in town. The EA CEO would see that and think "what a nice monopoly, time to hike the prices, charge an entry fee and introdue a 'visitor pass' subscription that lets you inspect the fruit before buying it". Because what are the townspeople going to do about it? Grow their food themselves? (Yes.)

That's what happened with WotC: their product is at its core still just a collection of writings and math - and their target audience consists to a large extent of people with science backgrounds who engage in creative storytelling as a hobby. Treat them badly and they'll just switch to or even create an alternative to your product.

Same with Unity: they're a software development company whose CEOs have forgotten that game developers are also software developers.

Both companies were started by people with a genuine love for their work, who were identical to the people who bought their creations. They were gradually replaced with generic CEO types more interested in maximizing profits than maintaining a sustainable business environment. They're like peat farmers who drain a bog to get to the peat, which has been built-up by the plants growing in the bog over the course of thousands of years.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

We are listening, talking to our team members, community, customers, and partners, and will be making changes to the policy.

I don't know about you, but I can hardly wait to be completely disappointed and underwhelmed at these "changes"!

 

[Noodles]

I don't know about you, but I can hardly wait to be completely disappointed and underwhelmed at these "changes"!

Yeah, I feel like they have burned bridges already. They might be able to save face with projects already using ornworking with Unity, but I can't imagine a lot of developers will choose Unity for their next project.

By say, 5 years, I predict nothing will use Unity at all.

 

[detrius]

Everything you need to know about Godot 4 Bundle

We’ve teamed up with Zenva Academy for a bundle of courses to teach you to make and develop games with Godot. Pay what you want & support Girls Who Code!

www.humblebundle.com

lol

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

By say, 5 years, I predict nothing will use Unity at all.

I don't think so, because many devs have built up Unity expertise for years, and that's not something they want to throw lightly overboard. If Unity appeases them enough, most will stay with it. Furthermore its an area with not much competition in it if its multi platform and 3D, and therefore choises you have.

The biggest engine on the market is Unreal; and Unreal wants 5% of your gross revenue once you hit 1 million dollars. Unity is compared to that a bargain.

What has been taking somewhat ground in the 2D indie scene in the last years is the Godot engine, which is opensource and free to use. But for advanced 3D projects this engine probably is not good enough yet.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Yeah you can make a platformer or roguelike or mobile dungeon-crawler in 3D with Godot, but it's not capable yet of AAA-style open-world sandbox type games. That's purely a Unity/Unreal biopoly at the moment and will be for a while.

I suppose there is hope that a massive surge in indy developer interest will translate to a donation spike for Godot, to the point where they can hire a few more devs and just suddenly explode in development and importance like Blender did a few years ago.

But even now, I love how YouTube is suddenly just completely full of "migrate from Unity to Godot" tutorials.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

Well IMHO Godot is a great choice right now for 2D games, something many indie games specialise in. And that's the main aspect most of these videos discuss.

 

[Free]

They kind of caved.

Unity makes major changes to controversial install-fee program

No fees for Personal tier or old/current projects, new 2.5% revenue cap, and more.

arstechnica.com

In a new blog post, Unity now says that projects made on current and earlier versions of Unity will not be subject to the new runtime fee structure. Only projects that upgrade to a new "Long Term Support" (LTS) version of Unity starting in 2024 and beyond will have to pay the charges, the company says.

This change should eliminate at least some of the legal confusion over projects started under one set of terms being moved to a new set unilaterally. Unity has also restored a GitHub page that was set up in 2019 to help developers track Terms of Service changes and reinstated its commitment that "you can stay on the terms applicable for the version of Unity editor you are using – as long as you keep using that version."

 

[Free]

GOG Interview: learn more about games preservation with Video Games History Foundation and support their cause!

GOG Interview: learn more about games preservation with Video Games History Foundation and support their cause!

www.gog.com

 

[Khamon]

Developers might be okay completing their current Unity projects but they're still going seek alternatives for future endeavors. or doom dee doom doom think we'll build this newfangled game on the latest version of Unity knowing that they're gonna nickel and dime us to death da hor da hor. I don't think so.

 

[Essence Lumin]

Developers might be okay completing their current Unity projects but they're still going seek alternatives for future endeavors. or doom dee doom doom think we'll build this newfangled game on the latest version of Unity knowing that they're gonna nickel and dime us to death da hor da hor. I don't think so.

What are they going to do? Switch to Unreal? Are their terms better?

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Unreal is already more expensive than the payment schedule Unity is about to change to.

 

[Khamon]

Trust is trust. What is the probability that Unreal will raise their rates, impose additional fees, or restrain licensing over the next few years? How likely do we believe Unity is to do those things?