Agreed; Hanlon’s Razor applies here.

Stop using Hanlon's Razor. The only thing it cuts is the people using it over and over again. Say it with me: stupidity is weaponized so as to be indistinguishable from malice.

I am willing to extend the Razor to clueless individuals at most. It does NOT apply to corporations.

This is a corporation. They know exactly what they are doing.

Have you ever worked in a corporation?

Yes. I actually have my own company. Always assume they have an army of lawyers backing their every move. I know I do.

Ah. And you think lawyers know what they’re doing.

They know just enough to enable the corporation's strategic incompetence whenever the situation calls for it.

They can't ever introduce any revenue sharing because they promised not to do that and would be immensely vulnerable to lawsuits if they ever went back on that promise. This was their attempt to do something that didn't technically count as revenue sharing.

They had already promised to abide by the terms of the license in force at the moment it was agreed to, so the fact that they promised not to do something does not stop them, apparently.

Someone who agreed to a prior version of the license will always be able to abide by that version of the license. The fact that they removed the provision going forward is just them trying to lock-in future customers.

No, it was a plan to lock in current customers that didn't look into license every time they updated engine.

That's why they removed the repo too, too easy to see the changes.

Whatever, a plan to lock in anyone who accidentally "agrees" to the new terms. You know what I meant.

I just wanted to highlight it wasn't for just new customers like you wrote but potentially every game in development using Unity. That's a massive difference.

Yeah I agree with you on this. This might have been the CEO too proud to not go back on his strong words against revenue share. That said the alternative they presented is a really stupid alternative. I don't think anyone has argued that Unity shouldn't be able to make money or increase their fees if necessary, but they should have followed their word on "stay on the terms you signed up to" and not do such a crazy version of fee increase as they did (install fee is a really stupid metric and that the install fee didn't have a roof was really bad).

Now they kind of did though. Since you can pick between 2.5% and paying the install fee.

Also I’m not sure how are “promises” legally binding unless they are part of a contract?

> Also I’m not sure how are “promises” legally binding unless they are part of a contract?

You'd be surprised. Claims that are made as part of any marketing material or promotion can absolutely result in lawsuits if someone built their business on that claim and then Unity screwed them over. Unity is liable for the things that they say in a public capacity.

Most contracts I've seen have clauses that specifically say that you are agreeing that the contract is limited to the terms in the contract itself and waiving everything else so you are probably out of luck there.

It’s known as promissory estoppel. The main reason promises are often not binding is that you can’t prove the other party said it. If you can prove the other party said it, and you “reasonably” relied on their statements, and suffered damages because their statements were false, you can recover those damages from them.

(IANAL)

If they are stupid, it is even worse. Search for stupidity theories, kind of fun.

>First you’d have to argue that only the top execs were aware of this, because a bunch of Unity employees quit due to this.

This doesn't follow - it's entirely possible that the execs planned to do this, a bunch of dev's said "that's insane and we'll quit if you do this", the execs followed through, and the devs followed through on their threats to quit.

Or someone may have postulated that people would quit over this change, and that wasn't considered a deal breaker at the time. Depending on how cynical we feel, they may have viewed people quitting as a positive; people who won't play ball with the new vision leave the company.

> First you’d have to argue that only the top execs were aware of this.

They would have to be, because deniability is important for a gambit like this. I'm not sure how you would announce "we're going to psychologically manipulate our customers" to the team anyway.