After the news of Riccitiello retiring as a CEO of Unity, I feel forced to say that... none of us is more right or wrong than before. Taking a fact and interpreting it in a way that acts as a confirmation of a narrative, even when that fact by itself doesn't actually confirm nor refuse the narrative (which is the case here)... Well, that's called confirmation bias.
As an example, let's take another fact and make a different interpretation from it. The fact: Riccitiello is 65-66 years old, that is, his retirement age. The interpretation: Riccitiello already had the intention to retire before this, but the fee was already planned (or being planned) at that point, so he and the board of directors understood that announcing the fee right after the appointment of a new CEO was a way worse decision than doing it right before the retirement of its current one. And thus they announced it before.
I'm not saying that that is what actually happened, because I don't know, obviously. It's just an interpretation of a fact.
Hell, even if Unity announced layoffs tomorrow, that wouldn't still mean anything, given the sad present reality of the industry, with massive layoffs all around (Epic Games, Team17, Telltale Games, just to name some of the latest). And still, if that same thing happened within Unity, then people would automatically conclude that it is due to the controversy. And they could be right, of course... but they could also be wrong. Yet they wouldn't think for a moment that they're wrong; they'd just assume that they're right, because that would fit their narrative.
But, hey, again, I'm not saying that the interpretation of Riccitiello retiring as a strategy to gain trust is wrong —it may be right, actually—. It's just that none of us actually knows, because it's just an interpretation of a fact. The only thing that would actually confirm that Unity is fucked up and desperately trying to regain trust are actual, trusted figures showing Unity in a very bad spot. And maybe those figures are real and end up made public at some point, and then everyone can actually say, backing it up with actual data (and not assumptions), that they are right. But, at this current point in time, that's (still) not the case.
As for me, as I said in a previous post, I believe that Unity will lose some market share (in the single digits, presumably), but no huge damage has actually been done, in my opinion. I also think that I'm more informed than most people in this thread (because it's in my own interest to be informed, basically xD), but I acknowledge that being more informed doesn't make me right, so it's entirely possible that I'm wrong in my opinion/prediction, and I don't care if I am. The only reason why I defend it is because I believe that, when you have an opinion that is actually informed, you have nothing to be ashamed of in the event that you're wrong, and also nothing to brag about if you're right, because the important part is not being wrong or right, but being able to back it up with informed arguments. I mean, I think I'm right (obviously xD), but I don't care enough to brag about it if that ends up being true.
Also, about the "reversal" of the fee...
| BEFORE THE FEE | AFTER THE ORIGINAL FEE | AFTER THE REVISED FEE | |
| Developers with a game that has been downloaded more than 200,000 times and generated more than 200,000$ | They had to pay 400$ for Unity Plus |
They could choose between paying the fee or spending 2,000$ in Unity Pro (but the second option was always better) |
They have to pay 2,000$ for Unity Pro |
| Developers with a game that has been downloaded more than 1,000,000 times and generated more than 1,000,000$ | No fee (obviously) | Fee | Exact same fee (but with a 2.5% top limit) |
As I said in previous posts, the original fee had two problems that made it frankly terrible:
- it was tied to installations (aka "initial engagements") and
- it didn't give developers time to prepare.
The revised fee solves those two problems:
- it is actually still tied to "initial engagements", but there's now a limit percentage (aka "choice") that prevents any potential unfair situation that could have arisen with the previous fee; and
- the developers can upgrade whenever they choose to, so they have as much time to prepare as they want. (This is the only part of the revised fee that could be considered as some sort of a reversal.)
So, after solving the two issues that made the fee so freaking bad, it's now a much better one (one that is actually reasonable), but... I wouldn't call that a reversal by any means, given that its key features are still there. xD The revised fee was just worded in a way that made it sound like the changes were more and better than they actually were. But they are not: the fee is mostly the same, just with its two problems addressed and solved, and a couple of "containment measures" here and there. So there was no actual backtracking; just patching. And all that anyone has to do to check that what I'm saying is true is reading its full terms.
Oh, and I think that John Riccitiello, despite being a "fucking idiot", has actually been (very) positive for the company in his ten years as a CEO.
P. S.: in the not-so-likely event that I'm quoted, I'm busy these days, so it would take a couple of days (or probably more) for me to reply. Sorry about that.
I'm mostly a lurker now.
