2048
Picture taken from their Twitter
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
2048 points (99.2% liked)
Games
32463 readers
1386 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not sure it's legal to implement it retroactively. I'd be very curious to get an attorney's perspective - seems a lot like trying to unilaterally change a contract after both parties have signed. But I have a hard time imagining anyone being willing to develop using Unity going forward.
There's no way this is legal unless it's already in a contract -- and even then, it might still be illegal. The notion of charging people more money because you've raised your prices after they've already bought something just breaks economics completely. You'd be able to sell a bunch of a product for cheap, and then later say sike and charge everyone a lot more.
I'm sure companies would love to do that, but no company exists in isolation. Every single company is buying something from another company to sell their product. If they could do this to their buyers, then their suppliers could do it to them. It would probably end up cancelling any gains you'd get.
I'm guessing this was a move their executives made without any consultation with legal, because it's the kind of idiotic move only they could think of.
I feel like any company with a legal department would surely check with them before announcing something like this. But maybe unity is so poorly ran they don’t have a legal team or didn’t check idk
I think you overestimate how much they care about doing illegal things. They will try it, and if someone can prove it's illegal, they'll pay a minor fine and stop, maybe. Otherwise they'll get away with it. That's how corps look at laws.
I mean you'd think so, but look at how often companies get into lawsuits for clearly illegal shit. Plenty of places will still try to enforce arbitration/NDA clauses that have no actual legal basis or consequence.
I would think so too but this entire decision has felt like the company is shooting itself in the foot, so who even knows anymore.