Its not really an apology and they are still doing the runtime fee, just with minor tweaks
I want to start with this: I am sorry.
If that's not an apology, then I don't know what is. I'm not defending them by any means, I've moved my projects away from Unity over to Godot already and am not planning to go back. But you can't argue they haven't apologized. If they proposed their fees in this form right from the beginning, there would probably be no drama at all.
I mean, I feel like saying they said the phrase 'I am sorry' makes it true that it is an apology in the most literal sense, but it is sort of an asinine point, in my opinion. The comment you replied to was, from what I read into it, is saying the execs at unity didn't regret their choice, just that they were catching flak. They would absolutely have left the original policy change in place if it wasn't for the fact that it was going to tank their revenue. If they ever felt they could get away with this again at some point in the future, then they absolutely will try this again. It is a good victory for those who called them out, but they are not sorry that they tried and probably will try similar things in the future.
To me, it helps to think of corporate America as an abuser (because they are). Sure, the abuser can say I'm sorry again and again every time they harm you, but at what point is it not really an apology? If they keep trying (and often succeeding) in doing it, then at, some point, I think I wouldn't be satisfied with a hollow gesture.
Seems like a sensible overhaul, hitting the major issues with the fee, but still going ahead with a version of it. Big points for me:
- Not retroactive. Only affecting the next version of Unity, and you can even opt out of updating to skip the fee.
- Data is now reported by the customers. Still not sure how that plan to enforce this, but it's a hell of a lot better than some arbitrary data collection scheme being baked into the game.
- Free version is excluded. No charging tiny side projects, or students or something, it only affects already paying customers.
Still not sure I love charging per install as a concept, and they've already overplayed their hand and burnt many bridges, but at least this implementation isn't insanely hostile. Guess we'll see how this plays out from here.
I'm not surprised they walked it back. They've pulled the classic "new coke" trick here: put out something deeply terrible no one will ever agree to, then walk it back pretty significantly to something still shitty and exploitative, but not as bad as what you had threatened. Your customers feel like this is a win, but they're still stuck with a worse deal than before the beginning of the debacle.
