Unity walked back from charging per installation earlier today. Now they will be charging per device it is installed on.
It doesn’t solve the core problem, but it at least prevents install-bombing like you are suggesting
https://www.eurogamer.net/unity-backtracks-slightly-on-plans-to-charge-developers-for-game-installs
Other articles I have been reading on the topic do mention it:
Unity has also clarified the changes are “not retroactive or perpetual”, noting it will only “charge once for a new install” made after 1st January 2024. However, while it won’t be charging for previously made installs, fees do indeed apply to all games currently on the market, meaning should any existing player of an older game that exceeds Unity’s various thresholds decide to re-install it after 1st January, a charge will still be made.
When I say that it applies retroactively, I mean that it applies to games released in the past.
It’s true that they are not retroactively charging devs for past downloads. That would have been even worse.
I’m no legal expert, and I have no familiarity with Unity’s licensing terms. So I didn’t want to outright call what they are doing illegal.
For all I know they did technically have a clause in their licensing agreement that allows them to do this. But that wouldn’t make it any less of a scum move imo.
It’ll be interesting to see what the lawyers will make of this.
From what I understand this change will retroactively apply to games released in the past as well. I think that’s a rather scummy move on Unity’s part. “I’ve altered the deal. Pray I don’t alter it further.”
And it’s not like game devs have been using a free product. They already pay for it through expensive licenses per developer.
If the justification on Unity’s part is true, that for each install of a Unity game the runtime environment needs to be downloaded from their servers, then maybe they should look into fixing that rather than nickle and diming their customers for each individual install (customers in this case being the game developers)
I’m currently using it as a network printer via CUPS (so yes, Linux)
But to my knowledge that still requires the appropriate drivers to be installed on Windows 🤔
So what does this mean for my old laser printer dating back to the early 2000s? Will I not be able to use that anymore?
It’s still perfectly functional, so it would be a bit of a shame and a waste of money to have to replace it.
Pretty sure the “right to be forgotten” already exists legally in a couple of places.
Google doesn’t provide an easy dashboard to request link deletion, but they do have to comply in places like the EU and UK (if I recall correctly)
I’d prefer it if my nuclear waste doesn’t drip into the ocean, please /s
They don’t care whether you call it Facebook or Meta.
All they care about is that enough people were talking about the name change, so that they were distracted from the real controversy (which is the “Facebook Papers” revalations)
I’m not convinced that running a Kickstarter for a product named Abode, with a (mockup) styling that is designed to look like the Adobe Suite, can somehow be argued not to be selling a product on the back of the Adobe brand.
Even if he changes the branding before release of the final product, that doesn’t change that he used branding increadibly similar to Adobe’s in order to sell his product which is going to compete with Adobe.
Edit: The Kickstarter page in question
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/culturehustle/abode-a-suite-of-world-class-design-and-photography-tools
Patents and Trademark are two separate things:
The issue I see is not so much that Abode is aiming to make an Adobe Suite competitor, but rather that they are so purposefully mimicking the brand and image of Adobe in doing that. I think it is likely that the courts will rule this to be blatant trademark infringement
Personally, as a member of the community, I just go with LGBT+ or LGBTQ+ (or in my own language LHBTI+)
You can keep specifying further and futher, but the acronym just becomes so unwieldy that noone knows what you are talking about anymore.
Considering that you could hypothetically leave personal information in your comments, would those comments not also need to be deleted?
GDPR also allows you to do a data deletion request.
How would one realistically go about testing their backup? Do you need a bunch of empty drives?
I’m not entirely certain, but as far as I’m aware it is divided based on watch-time.
They introduced that tier a year ago, right?
I remember looking into it at the time and deciding against downgrading. I’m not entirely sure why.
I think it was because of the lack of background playback in the mobile app? 🤔
(Bit expensive for such a tiny feature, but I digress…)
That hasn’t stopped me from using other Google services like Gmail, Docs, or Drive either.
If I ever decide I want to opt out of Google’s ecosystem I’ll just serve them a GDPR data deletion request.
That’s what I did when I deleted my Twitter account as well.
I don’t think the prices in Europe are increasing (yet). My plan is still 12 euros / month.
And regardless… It’s been 12 euros since it was launched in Europe in 2018.
If the price were to go up to 14 euros in 2023, that would pretty much be in line with inflation.
Be sure to make regular backups of your data.
… and using RAID is not a backup.