Unity Backpedals on Its Horrible Plan for Game Install Fees Amid Developer Backlash::Unity CEO John Riccitiello reportedly sold thousands of shares of stock in the weeks ahead of the fee announcement.

    • kautau@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      58
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah lol “Publicy traded company releases vague PR message to appease investors” is the headline

      • NateNate60@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think investors are idiots. They will look at whether the development community will accept whatever those changes end up being, or see whether Unity will just quietly let this thing die and pretend it never happened.

        It’s harder to be stupid when it’s your money on the line.

        • kautau@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          They aren’t, this PR message will do very little, but it’s still better than “going dark” after their announcements for now

        • pup_atlas@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          The absolutely are, because it’s not a binary “try it and see if it works” change. This is a one-time, irreversible loss of brand trust from game developers who have a lot at stake, and a TON of options. There are no take backsies on stuff like this. Choosing a game engine for your game is a big decision, often researched and backed by some form of business team who are never gonna swing for a company with a track record of pulling out the financial rug from their customers. They will loose billions, if not outright kill their company by even suggesting this sort of thing with a straight face.

          • NateNate60@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m confused by what you’re trying to do with this comment. What does “the[y] absolutely are” refer to?

            • pup_atlas@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              In this case the “they” is referring to Unity. The value of Brand trust is one of the primary assets any company has, and this sort of behavior destroys that. Why would you invest tens millions of dollars in developing a game in an engine that could suddenly bankrupt a company in licensing fees, with little to no warning or transparency? It isn’t 2010 any more, and there are plenty of options for platforms.

  • nul9o9@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    125
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Step 1: Propose an incredibly stupid, greedy, unpopular move that gets everyone pissed off.

    Step 2: Announce a change of plans due to the feedback, and implement your original less stupid, greedy, unpopular move.

        • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t know whether you care about the specifics, but just in case you do…

          Selling stock you own before a price drop isn’t selling short. Insider trading yes, but not selling short.

          Selling short requires you borrow stock you don’t own and then sell it, with a promise to purchase it later. If you know a price drop is coming, then you make money on the fact that you’ve sold it at a higher price than you need to pay to purchase it.

          • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The comment I was replying to said “sell/short”, either being strategies to protect yourself when you’ve got insider info that your company is about to hemorrhage money.

  • Doomsider@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    CEO should not be compensated in shares because they have insider information and can benefit from manipulation. It has always been a recipe for disaster.

      • Jamie@jamie.moe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        I always thought there should be a minimum hold time. Somewhere between 1-5 years after they leave their position.

        It encourages them to think long term instead of just the next quarter, and they really have to leave the company in a better place than they found it.

        • applebusch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I fully agree with you and that sounds like a great idea. It sent me down a chain of thought that I find interesting. Say we implement this, CEO A does their job, but shortly before their time is up, they discover something awful. They are about to leave, so they want the next 1-5 years to be rosy, so they do some extremely unethical bullshit to ensure that and hide the problem just long enough for the next guy to take the fall. CEO B, who took over when A left, figures out the awful thing, but it’s been long enough that they kind of have no choice but to continue the unethical bullshit, to ensure their compensation when they leave. And so on with CEO C and D. That’s a feasible possibility to me and I also just realized they probably do that now, just on a shorter timescale. All in all I’d say the long term shit is probably better on the whole. Ooooor we could do something besides give one schmuck executive feudal authority over a bunch of people’s livelihoods. Maybe like some kind of democratic system.

    • Romanmir@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel like no executive should be able to exercise their stock options while they still work at the company.

  • samus12345@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    1 year ago

    If I were a developer, the fact that Unity seriously considered doing this means I would stop using it as soon as possible. Even if they reverted it now, they can’t be trusted to not try something similarly shitty later.

    • serratur
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Godot is open source, hope this news boost its development

      • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Their development fund apparently doubled and every developer realizes the value of open source tooling now. I’d think it’s going to get plenty of attention, both in terms of development and contributions to the wider ecosystem.

  • sebinspace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even if they actually backpedaled, I don’t care! They’ve already shown what they’re willing to try to get away with. Even if they didn’t succeed, it says a lot about where their head is, and I can’t trust a company like that.

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good to see businesses still backpedaling.

    It’s getting frightening that companies are basically at the point of “We plan to take all your money and there’s nothing you can do about it, bitch.”

    Fuck you unity. I wanna see this kill your whole platform.

  • MrBananaMan@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    I keep seeing this thing about the CEO selling shares. It was an automatic sell that was preplanned way in advance. That’s what the rule 10b-5 trading plan means in the disclosures.

    • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t see how this is a defense. If it’s scheduled, he knows it’s happening. He could have just delayed the announcement until the day after his shares were scheduled to sell, and the intention is the same. Having a schedule doesn’t exempt you from insider trading, it’s a procedure that needs to be followed.

      On the other hand, the better defense here is that he’s a multi millionaire or billionaire, and he sold like $80k worth of shares. If he was really intending to dump, he’d be selling like 100x this amount.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It was a cancellable automatic sell. Which means it’s just a way to make insider trading legal. Everything is legal if you’re rich.