The title, especially in light of the stuff that went on with Unity, makes one think that this will affect a much wider group of people than it actually does.

Unreal was never "free for all". For game development, there has always been revenue thresholds.

The new licensing is around commercial use outside of game development, and will also be revenue threshold based. Meaning, just like with game development, if your project is making you money over X threshold, then the licensing kicks in.

The title is misleading.

> The title, especially in light of the stuff that went on with Unity, makes one think that this will affect a much wider group of people than it actually does.

If you look at the title and think of a different company, that's not the headline's fault. It doesn't even try to reference Unity.

Also what I said in my previous comment is relevant here.

> Unreal was never "free for all".

I accept that it's bad wording, but I don't see how that misleads anyone unless you thought the engine was completely free.

> If you look at the title and think of a different company, that's not the headline's fault. It doesn't even try to reference Unity.

Things don't happen in a vaccuum. The Unity fiasco is still fresh on everyone's mind. For any company anywhere in the gaming sphere to change their prices so soon - is going to draw comparisons to Unity. The fact multiple people are discussing this with you should prove that.

Do they need to explicitly contrast the situation with Unity in the headline to avoid being misleading?

Headlines don't have a lot of space!

And as I said in a different comment, the subheading seems to address the main complaints, and in most situations you'd see the headline and the subheading together.

I think the mere fact this is an engine license change happening so close to the Unity fiasco that yes, it is impossible to talk about this without automatically invoking thoughts of what Unity did. Some news and blogs will take advantage of this association and use it for clicks.

Are you suggesting it's impossible to avoid being misleading, or do you have a solution in mind? Since you didn't really answer my question.

If it's the former then I think that absolves the author.

I just read through this chain of comments and I do think there is a lot of talking past each other.

I do not think the author was purposefully being misleading. I do not think they need absolution for anything. I think it may be interperted as misleading by some (as it did for the original commentor) based on the reader's recent experiences with Unity and the latest drama; which is not a property of the article, the headline, or the author - but the reader.

>Headlines don't have a lot of space!

"Unreal Engine starts charging for non-game development".

It's not about space, and we know it's all too easy to bury the lede and leave the internet to lash out as it is oft to do. But I don't blame the author. I know in larger sites editorial will make the title without context of the writing independent of the contents in order to maximize traffic.

>"Unreal Engine starts charging for non-game development".

Exactly. Surprised that argument was coming from an 2010 account.

"no longer free for all" implies that it was "free for all" and the change is making it no longer "free for all". In other words, the title is presenting information to the reader that is literally not true.

For your personal reference, here is how the dictionary defines the word "misleading". (Cambridge and Merriam Webster, respectively)

> causing someone to believe something that is not true

> to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit

> to lead astray : give a wrong impression

I would say that the title manages to hit on all 3 of these definitions, with a possible note that perhaps the author "misspoke" rather than intentionally creating a deliberate deceit.

I think the sense in which the title is being criticized for being misleading is not the interpretation where the engine was completely and entirely free. I'm sure a few people thought that by accident but it's not what people are talking about when they bring up comparisons to Unity. That particular wording issue is not something that gets a top comment callout. There isn't any motive to cause that particular confusion on purpose.

> I don't see how that misleads anyone unless you thought the engine was completely free.

That's how i understood it, was surprised, clicked the thread to find out more.

Sample size of 1, but I was (maybe accidentally) misled.

It was very much intentional, don't blame yourself. Or I don't know, blame yourself for not reading the article? Either way, this is why an accurate non-click sit headline is necessary, there are many many more people like you and some like to shout and spread misinformation on social media.

> If you look at the title and think of a different company, that's not the headline's fault. It doesn't even try to reference Unity.

Being aware of current events and how they may shape how people come to conclusions is a skill that not everybody possesses I suppose.

The headline is most definitely misleading and poorly worded. A better headline would be "Unreal licensing change targets tv production use cases" or something like that.

As the other user pointed out, Unreal Engine was never free for all. So wording it like this misleads the reader into thinking about the most commonly talked about use-case, video game development. And when they read "no longer be free for all" it leads them to believe that people that currently don't pay for Unreal Engine may now have to. Hence the title being "misleading." But hey, journalism is a skill that you work on over time. The editor should have caught this.

"Unreal Engine will no longer be free for non-gaming companies" is 100x less misleading. You are right in that technically speaking it's not misleading, but to me it feels like it's skirting the line of lying by omission. Obviously now with hindsight I can see how the "for all" changes the meaning, but it wasn't obvious (at least to me).

No, the headline is blatantly trying to elicit a negative response towards Unreal i.r.t. Unity's recent pricing change.

Blatantly!

Please explain how this headline connects to Unity at all?

Yes we can assume a lot of people reading the headline will know about it... but I don't see this blatant connection. Would they have to explicitly say it's not like Unity in the headline to escape this?

They even put "non-gaming creatives" in the subheading. Maybe whoever posted should have copied that? If you post the link on most social media you'll automatically see the headline and the subheading.

It's very obvious clickbait. It's clearly exploiting the Unity news.

Clickbait can only be analyzed in terms of the title, not the sub header or content. Because the title is what gets reposted and makes people follow a link.

The headline assumes the point. If Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all, that implies that, right now, it is free for all, like e.g. Godot. Which is just emphatically untrue.

It's like saying (to use the classic example), "I will no longer beat my wife." I never did, just like Unreal was never free for all.