I sure feel glad to never have gotten into developing with it. When I saw that a blank project generated a ~231MB executable back in 4.1 or so, I simply ditched it.

Licenses that allow retroactive changes are terrible for the end user, fuck up the company's image and might give a significant boost to competition. Hasbro trying to pull that shit with DnD earlier this year comes to mind.

[–] FaeDrifter@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

Our terms of service provide that Unity may add or change fees at any time. We are providing more than three months advance notice of the Unity Runtime Fee before it goes into effect. Consent is not required for additional fees to take effect, and the only version of our terms is the most current version; you simply cannot choose to comply with a prior version. Further, our terms are governed by California law, notwithstanding the country of the customer.

Yup lol.

What's funny and sad is that about 3 years ago on r/godot, I had an argument with a Unity fanboy over this exact thing. He was demanding someone give him a reason that Godot should exist, when, in his humble opinion, Unity did everything and did it better.

My take was that you don't actually own your Unity-made game. You might own the assets and trademark, but as long as you're licensing the engine, you are subject to the whims of Unity.

Of course that was theoretical, until today.

[–] Syndic@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

I'm pretty sure that even if the license agreement does have such language that it won't uphold in court. And there are enough big companies using Unity for this to go to court if they try to come to collect.

I mean seriously, if that would be legally possible, nothing would prevent them from uping the charge to $10, $20 or even $100 per installation, applied retroactively.