Clarification: Unity's "Industry" license is only for non-gaming and non-entertainment applications (e.g. automotive, architecture, etc.). So this doesn't impact developers developing games with Unity.
Until it's an established payment model for one product category, after which it fill feel more natural to extend it to others.
The worst part of it isn't even that devs would get their wallets shaken out but that it's really just surveillance in disguise. Those apps would “““have to””” spy on me as an end-user in order for them to know what to charge.
Now thinking about it, its so valid point, how would that even work though if I am being honest
like I am pretty sure that the only way that they can do this is via giving it internet access and if that's the case, I wonder how much spying it does on our computer before sending it to unity headquarters in the name of this industry fees
Please, someone create a #usegodot or some twitter thing to just get it trending. We need to use goodot (I tried typing godot but I wrote goodot TWICE which is so funny and ironical so I am keeping it here)
Unity knows what project you're building and if you've built it under a paid license before. If they notice you using a free license, they'll go after you.
Thank you. I really do not understand why anyone trusts Unity to keep this for only non-entertainment if it proves successful. They only backed off before because the backlash was so bad. Assuming that means they won't try to find ways to slowly bring it back in the future is dangerous to me.
That sounds well and good, but Unity forced my last company into the more expensive license unilaterally and with no discussion. They doubled our costs just because they can.
At this point, we should all treat Unity like we do Broadcom. Utterly toxic and should be avoided at all costs because they will shake you down and leave you with a lesser product for no reason other than blind greed.
Nothing Unity does will ever recover the goodwill they nuked for money
It does, though, because it means you don't have the freedom to pivot to other industries, or to fork for use in industry, which is a thing that can happen. It's definitely a reason to consider avoiding Unity.
The title of this post is just straight up wrong and should be changed or this post flagged. They didn't reintroduce the "Runtime Fee" nor is it called that anywhere on the Unity site. It's an entirely different pricing setup that is virtually identical to Unreal's, just a bit cheaper.
Unity's failure to communicate will be studied for decades.
They really should of straight matched Unreal's revenue cut from the start, and maybe offer a deduction for site licenses.
Instead they announce something like a 20 cent fee per "initial interaction" which they track via embedded spyware. You had a massive backlash from indie developers who realistically weren't Unity's target in the first place.
People who never programmed or made a commercial product already complaining Unity is coming for them.
That said, Godot is often good enough for what most new programers can actually do.
It's also OK for certain non gaming projects. No need to worry about Unity deciding your not making a game and hiking your fees.
They announced it, but based on their actual pricing tables effectively nobody outside of a tiny extremely unlucky proportion of users would have paid that much. The effective fee was several times smaller and they also switched to a per project instead a per company revenue limit for personal tier (which would have resulted in a significant price cut for a quite a few people).
Yet nobody noticed any of that because their announcements were incomprehensible .
Not that I am a fan of the whole pricing model but they were so exceptionally bad at communicating it. Like it's hard to even fathom what sort of incompetent idiots they had running their marketing department (I mean an average intern would have had handled it better). IMHO it would have been hard to bungle it more even if they tried doing it on purpose...
There's no mention of a fee similar to the infamous Runtime fee (which charged per install) here; instead, the closest thing on this page is a mention in the FAQs about how if the Unity runtime is included in a commercial product, then not only do you need permission from Unity to do so but you also will give Unity a fee that is roughly equivalent to 4% of the software's revenue.
This license appears to be intended for users using Unity to augment their business' operations; creating a commercial product with the runtime is treated as an edge case under this license.
They must have raised money based on this plan -- the board must be holding them to execute it again to hit the projected IRR. If they had full control of their own destiny, I think most operators would just focus on a different business model.
And there's the real reason to permanently distrust Unity. Not what they're doing, who they are. They're a scorpion. Doesn't matter how long it's been since they stung someone. It's in their nature.
I've been building with unity for some time now and the only thing that actually registers for me is the steam cut. I don't care about the historical drama or per seat licenses if we "make it". Valve is a much bigger mouth to feed in any reality.
Making games is hard and worrying about stuff like this is virtually guaranteed to ensure your failure. Having 100% of $0 isn't gonna take you very far.
In terms of tooling experience, Unity does provide a very compelling blend. If you have any Java or C# background at all, it's very easy to get productive quickly. I think the integration between VS and the unity editor is exceptional.
Their tooling is starting to show it's age, meanwhile competitors are advancing. I understand you were sold the dream that Unity will be your partner but they won't, ever, as you are their customer.
If you want to make a game, go for it. If you want to make one that works well into the future, I would question going with Unity. (fmr creator of Reactor 3D, contributor to UnrealEngine, donator to Godot, grand-uncle to MonoGame, I know this space).
Wow! Do you have a sense why it's not a profitable business for them? Just on the face of it, they have they have what is arguably the dominant product in this category, and they charge a reasonable license fee to use it.
I find it worrying if "make good software and sell it to people" isn't sufficient to have a profitable business.
And of course, Unity doesn't merely sell licenses, they also run an asset store and take a cut from every transaction, a business model that has been gold for other technology companies. Of course the market for Unity assets is smaller than mobile apps, but this is in addition to actual Unity licenses.
I do not have any insight into Unity besides looking at that plummeting profit graph.
But if they have a great product and a high price, then maybe they're just using way too many resources as input. It's easy to see that happening with bloated org charts / massive cloud bills / lots of overhead of some sort.
Is the fee reasonable if the company charging it has trouble making a profit?
I have no clue how profitable Unreal Engine is for Epic Games or if its subsidized by Fortnite. I believe their pricing structure only became favorable after that smash hit.
Well I guess that was my question! But starting at $200 per month per person seems relatively expensive, I'm surprised that's not enough to make a profit. (There is a free version, but as far as I know virtually no professional project is able to use that.)
Unity has had different licenses for non-gaming for at least a decade. E.g. gambling has always required a special license. See this Reddit thread from 2015.
Based on job adverts, gambling is huge for Unity, even casino cabinets. It surprises me, you wouldn't think there'd be room for so many players in that market.
I would guess it's because of regulatory compliance. You really don't want to release slots with a major payout but, and if you do, you want to be able to throw the blame at Unity.
I disagree. I believe there are enough game developers out there who enjoy using C# that would look for it in their next game engine. If Unity is gone it would leave a large hole to fill.
The upside is Unity's C# support is the worst available in any game engine. It's stuck on an old C#/.NET version, .NET (Core) runs C# code 2-5x faster than Mono (and IL2CPP) [1], and its garbage collector is slower than the one Mono ships with (which is also slower than .NET).
Why do you see C# adoption in gaming as desirable? Honest question. I think it's a good enough language, but why would it be a good fit specifically for building games?
Because I am firm believer in managed languages, and while I am also big into C++, I would like to still see the Xerox computing vision become reality on my lifetime.
Game developers usually are the last ones to move, and tend to do so due to external factors, mostly pressed by platform owners.
It was like that when we moved from Assembly in 8 and 16 bit platforms, slowly into Object Pascal (Mac/PC) and C.
Then it took until Watcom C/C++ on PC, and PlayStation 2 SDK, for C++ to finally start being taken seriously by game devs, then XBox did the rest on console space.
C# had a first victory in 2004 with Arena Wars, in OpenGL
Managed DirectX was already around, then XNA on XBox Live Arcade was the needed push.
When Microsoft killed in name of C++ and replaced it with DirectX TK, as usual in Windows in their territorial attitude, Mono project came up with MonoGame as rescue.
This is what enabled them to eventually join efforts with Unity, when they were rewriting the engine to be cross platform, and go beyond OS X.
Eventually Unity alongside C#, use to have a certain Flash like vibe, and for many, the entrypoint into the .NET ecosystem.
So it is kind of sad see this go away.
I don't believe in the one true language for everything, other than Timex BASIC, the moment I learned Z80, I have been a polyglot ever since.
A cool designed game, even in PyGame, has probably more entertainment value, than yet another remake in Unreal running on a PlayStation 5 Pro.
I'm not the parent poster, but to me it's not about C# in particular, but that there is basically no other well-supported gamedev framework in a language that's 1) statically typed, 2) garbage-collected for safety and productivity, 3) has decent performance, and 4) has good tooling/IDEs. JavaScript, C++, and Python/GDScript are all missing at least one of those. Java could possibly fill the gap, but it's still clunkier to program in than C#, and no Java game framework has much traction.
I'd be ecstatic if there were something checking those boxes that wasn't owned by Microsoft.
However I would point out that before Unity took off, jMonkeyEngine had a good following.
And since reference counting is also garbage collection from CS point of view, I would add Swift with the game development kits, however that is pretty much Apple only, thus not really the same league.
Microsoft unfortunately since XNA, the whole DirectX team has been anti .NET, they didn't even provided Windows Runtime Components for .NET Native, even though it would have been relatively easy to do so, as it is based on COM (plus some extras).
The moment key people responsible for XNA left the building, it was done.
jMonkeyEngine is on my list of things I want to do a project in. I hope it continues to get support. It might be better for 3D than Godot (based on hearsay anyway)
This is the standard strategy with these things it seems. Claim to remove the unpopular new idea, wait like 6 months and then secretly reintroduce it hoping the second wave have saturated the energy people feel like spending on it or that it goes under the radar.
I've been playing around with Godot for the past few months and as someone new to gamedev, it's been a really good experience. Wrapping my head around some gamedev-specific concepts has been tough, but that would be true regardless of the tooling.
Spend some time learning blender too, you’d be surprised at how much overlap in concepts there are. Texture mapping, models, camera, positioning, it’s all the same.
Funny you say that - my recent forays into blender have started bearing fruit and I'm sure it's because of what I learned in Godot. Previous attempts were not successful at all.
Crazy things can be done once you learn it though. It's just math underneath. You don't need to know the math per se but understand what's going on under the hood, what is "world coordinates" vs "local coordinates" vs "device normal coordinates". What is a material, a texture, a light source (how many can I use at once in a single pass?), what is a pass?, what is culling, what is a face, index, weight, or bone? All 3d programs, whether it's 3DS Max, Maya, Blender, Unity, Unreal, Three.js, all share a pretty similar concept of these things. Some abstract it further into just a buffer (vulkan, metal, wgpu) that you can do with as you please on the gpu side.
I had some fun just the other day making earth (again) in three.js (https://gabereiser.github.io/earth) with physically accurate shaders. Once you learn, it's actually really fun.
Most of the outrage was over it applying retroactively and that it was by download, which is quite frankly just a horrible idea and probably why it's not in this rendition.
A percentage of revenue is already what their biggest competitor (Unreal) does, and if they had announced that new versions had it they would have had backlash but not nearly to the extent that occurred.
Unity hasn't been profitable in 5 years, the revenue percentage doesn't even sound unfair, though the download fee was obviously exploitative.
So somehow Unity gave away or sold part of its engine and now China has a different fork of Unity that has some of the Unreal features built in along with lots of work on Cel-Shading.
While working at Unity I discovered my commits were being mirrored to a seperate github for china, where local chinese engineers hosted a fork of my teams service running on tencent cloud, re-engineering the DB etc to make it work with
Neither my product owner, tech lead, or skip-level knew about it and were surprised when I showed them
Snippet from Wikipedia: "In August 2023, Unity China announced that it would soon launch a Chinese edition called Tuanjie Engine based on Unity 2022 LTS, which includes support for Chinese platforms like Weixin Mini Game, OpenHarmony and AliOS."
> So somehow Unity gave away or sold part of its engine and now China has a different fork of Unity that has some of the Unreal features built in along with lots of work on Cel-Shading.
Surely "china" had access to unity this entire time, no? Isn't this the entire point of open source? "Unity" needs to provide some value if it wants to retain control of what code is being executed.
"What happens if I am distributing the runtime for commercial purposes?
According to our terms of service, the distribution of the Unity runtime for commercial purposes by Industry Customers requires explicit authorization from Unity and is subject to a fee ("Distribution License') which is generally equivalent to 4.0% of the revenue generated by the software product that incorporates the Unity runtime (discounts may apply). Please contact sales to discuss further."
For folks who didn't make the move to Godot the LAST time Unity pulled this, there's Godot... (not saying that move is easy for everyone, but am just sayin'...)
This shows once again that Unity is an unreliable option for new projects. The worst part is not the 4% fee, but the bluntness with which Unity has administered these changes. They show that any terms can change at any moment.
Godot is entirely unsuitable for the types of non-gaming commercial applications subject to this license (which has been around for over a decade in similar form).
Also...a 4% license for the underlying platform upon which your product is based is relatively cheap by historical standards. The numbers used to be well into the double digits.
As soon as companies don't give public concrete numbers/tables/etc. and instead tell me to "contact sales for pricing", I know they're not worth the headache of dealing with them trying to squeeze as much money as possible from me and every other individual customer.
And under the question "What happens if I am distributing the runtime for commercial purposes?":
>"Industry Customers requires explicit authorization from Unity and is subject to a fee ("Distribution License') which is generally equivalent to 4.0% of the revenue generated by the software product that incorporates the Unity runtime (discounts may apply)"
Since the title on here is "Unity reintroduces the Runtime Fee [...]" I assumed that there would be more to it the simple outright subscription plan(s), making me scroll down to the FAQ of the linked page where you can find the following bit of drivel which turned me right off:
> "How much does Unity Industry cost?
> For seat-based and floating license pricing, contact Sales."
Also, according to the "order summary" you get when have the default "monthly" option selected and click "Choose Plan", it says:
> "Commitment
> 8/21/2025 - 8/21/2026.
> Your total annual commitment is €4,968.00 excluding VAT /Sales Tax. ¹
> You will be charged for one month today and every month thereafter, and your subscription will > automatically renew at the end of your annual term. You can manage your subscription in your Unity Account."
indicating that even though you selected the "monthly" option it's still going to be an annual subscription and I just can't be bothered to wade through what're probably mountains of Legalese during my private time to find out how they're planning to keep you captive in that subscription for the whole year anyway.
Unity have demonstrated time and time again they're trying to screw their customers, so fuck 'em, use literally any other engine like Godot which has been recommended in this thread already. I don't think the company will reverse their course again now that the original outrage has cooled off but hopefully at least some some bottom-feeding manager types responsible for this get fired for "underperforming" if/when enough devs take their money elsewhere.
¹ in € it's 414€/mo or prepaid 4554€/a, essentially 11 instead 12 months if paid in advance
Literally next week Bitnami will pull all of their Docker images from public use. They were relied on by many people but since being bought by Broadcom, they just exist to be milked for cash.
They don't list a price for their new enterprise subscription, instead making you contact their 3rd party, outsourced sales team.
The quote I heard from a colleague was USD5'000 pcm. No wonder they don't want to publish that!
Broadcom has officially confirmed major changes to Bitnami's free container catalog, effective August 28, 2025, transitioning millions of developers from free access to paid subscriptions ranging from $50,000-$72,000 annually.
Stuff like this is why I chose to refactor my project into Godot. It lacks many of the UE/Unity features, so I am building many things myself, but the freedom I get feels worth the work. I have also been working on "commercial" subparts (like a digital twin system for things like datacenters), which this would apply to. I'm increasingly assured my decision was correct.
I am fully against this approach, but I do wonder what impact this kind of model might have on the absolute garbage shovelware/adware games that litter app stores, and subsequently the countless ads that try to push people towards those games.
the entire games industry is reminiscent of cryptocurrency. hundreds of thousands of completely worthless "titles". sole purpose in life is to grab unwitting customers money and run.
in this case, unity grabbing a percentage seems like a trading exchange taking a cut. is the exchange really the 'bad guy' in this interaction?
Games are art. Some people do it for money, some do it to express themselves, some do it for fun. What's worthless to you is very valuable to someone else.
Yes but it's undeniable that the industry has changed recently. It used to be, someone would make a game to express themselves, it would be picked up by a major studio, it would be expanded and polished until it had mass appeal, and became the next "blockbuster" game. Now, it's, someone makes a game to express themselves, and they eke by on a trickly of income, they fight for placement among the sea of shovelware on the game store sites, and they never get picked up by a big publisher. Meanwhile, the big 3 game companies are creating the same formulaic game over and over and, through massive advertising campaigns, have captured all of the customers.
Unlike memecoins most games have utility via interactivity. I say most because there are definitely games like Banana that don't really have any interactivity, but it arguably had a different kind of utility: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aitVHsg0rWA
Lets discuss. I genuinely hate memecoins with a passion but not indie games
Honestly, memecoins are just ponzi schemes. They are created on hype and people buy memecoins with the idea that it would trade higher and so on.
Noone in their goddamn right minds would just pay for an app showing some image of something. No, it is the idea that you can sell it for higher price, or if you can't, then why not just donate to them in the first place??
like if you think pepe is cool, just mail matt fury (I think he's the creator, just searched) some money and email him thanks on why pepe matters to you.
But nope people buy these shitty ass things just so that they can sell it to some other person believing the same dream as them.
And no, every cryptocoin is like this unless stablecoin in this sense but some coins have some utility that I can understand but still, if they have utility, just buy them when you want the utility man, but memecoins are the worst of the worst, just leeches on gullible people.
Indie devs are more like clippy (louis rossman, lets go, I am doing my deal spreading clippy)
Once you bought them, 99% don't want anything else from you. They don't want you to sell it to an higher fool.
they want you to play. they want you to give them feedback (both critisicm and praise) they want you to recognize the work they put in and they are proud of what they created which is why they created it.
Indie devs making games usually also take a lot more time and effort and that can only happen 90% of the time when you love the project than memecoins
But also I will admit that there are games that are not like that (think mobile ad games)
and yes they are as much an evil/scummy as memecoins. Maybe a little less since trading factor and selling to others is gone but still some apps target little kids so they are worse in that. Maybe those apps take some time to develop but that's it. In my opinion yes shitty mobile games are comparable to memecoins, they are both (scams?), one might take more effort than other but honestly that varies but yeah even then they both are scams.
But doing the disservice of even comparing every indie game to memecoin might make you A) completely wrong, doing a great disservice while basically spreading lies that basically ragebaited me man
B) the most downvoted person
You kinda ragebaited me no offense and I know you might be a good person. And its okay, misunderstandings happen. I may be wrong too, I usually am and that's why lets discuss if you think there is something wrong with what I said
The thing about whether they're a good person or not is that it doesn't matter because they're not worth replying to either way. You don't have a moral obligation to steel-man absolute stupidity, whether it's meant sincerely or trollingly.
I do think that we have a moral obligation though. And we can discuss about that too.
Basically, I think that this person who has this "stupid" thought had it because they were wrong in their reason and nothing wrong with that and they just showed the world that they have it.
Now here's what I think, if I mock them, they would hate even more and they would actually convince themselves that they were even more right
And if I say nothing, then they are just living in their own bubble and the algorithms serving them are either ragebaits or their own echo chambers.
But even then, if they are truly "stupid" (i don't think they are, they just have a wrong take), then worst case they don't change and even then I had fun writing the comment. but yeah I did get ragebaited in the beginning, they were so punchable as a face when I first read it but I mean, I don't know man, we need to burst echo chambers or atleast have good discussions around it instead of just making them live in their bubbles with wrong takes imo.
But I also understand that we have no moral obligation to, but I really try (I think) in this world to not make myself an echo chamber by helping others who are in so.
Not that we have to do it, but I got complimented once in some sense for it and I kinda aligned with it ever since.
Small things like compliments / actually listening to others can actually have the potential to compound so much for the other person that honestly its worth it in my opinion. But I think that I wish to get such reciprocity back, someone actually discussing things / helping others but the world just feels so mixed man idk. I just don't want to be shining hero but uh I genuinely wish that I can be the change that I want in this world
> Noone in their goddamn right minds would just pay for an app showing some image of something
Not to necessarily disagree with anything else you argued, but there's a small relatively profitable genre of games for consoles that are just a unity template with an image of a turtle or whatever, and you mash a button to pet the turtle. The reason these exist and people buy them is because you get trophies for pressing the button.
So "an app just showing an image of something" is not very far from what those games are, and a bunch of them exist and do make money. It's tremendously weird.
There are also games like that Banana steam game that exist as part of a weird microtransactions economy instead of existing as what most people would consider a game.
Hm, that's valid point and this is why I said in the end (I think) that yes some memes and games are comparable but not every.
Regarding about petting a turtle, the thing that I don't get is uh, who are paying for it. heck, I can just ask gpt 5 for the code to do so or why not just open source so small things? the only reason I can make petting things make sense is kinda like that banana game (yes I had heard of it) and to be honest, that thing still doesn't make sense to me and is absolutely a memecoin kinda thing and I think that they are targeting the same genre really. Men who want 100x returns because the whole industry is of liars who are selling you courses saying that they have 100x'd and you can too.
Also the fact that people are genuinely so stuck in the world at the same time that the only thing that they think that they can reasonably do is buy memecoin (which is almost like gambling if the odds were 99% casino .01% you since maths stop working in scamcoins )
The same people who gamble man, its chasing the highs. Maybe memecoins are a little bti less illegal or maybe its sorta allowed / less shunned than gambling in the world makes it more relevant.
I thought for more and I think I finally get it. just as how gambling is addicting, memecoins are also addicting.
Once people start they can't really stop just as in addictions, and uh the more they fall, the more they feel like it that the only way out is by shouting out loud about memecoins and making more people fall into the trap/ making it more lucrative/fashionable just as mostly any other addiction (think flashy casinos)
I am not even kidding but this idea goes sort of mainstream because the same principle applies to bitcoin etc. too, pardon me for being crude, but digital gold my ass.
As someone who genuinely uses stablecrypto and mostly uses native coins barely just to transact the stablecrypto. I never used to get it why the hell would people do what they are doing. I now actually understand. Suddenly things make sense to the behaviour I see.
Maybe some people believe it in because they want to be part of such utopian future idea that they have and so good for them, if someone's in for the tech, that's really good. But I'd much rather not do that since I don't want to fall into such addiction or trap or something and I genuinely want almost peace of mind in that sense. I am not compromising on psychological effects that I or heck anyone can have if they say their money fall in value and doubt about themselves. I don't want that. The best/ only thing that I will do is maybe invest in world index funds because I genuinely believe that their value comes out of productivity and not scams essentially. And its infinitely better than keeping your money in a jar and infinitely better for atleast my peace of mind than even normal crypto aside from stablecoins which I hold, I like stablecoins)
Its just not worth it but maybe for some it might be and I get it but still they are a fraction of the real userbase and the real userbase is making things worse for everyone by being a speculating/almost gambling machine man.
I think I get it, some people loved it for the tech and they used it, then there was some utility for sure but then some (malicious?) people started to sell the idea to everyone that it would 100x (maybe they genuinely believed it) and then it got attraction by (stupid? people) and got mainstream news to either attract more (stupid?) [I don't like that word, almost is deregatory] and maybe more tech lovers too.
This all kept on happening and the internet really just spread this like a wildfire to almost the gambling state thing that we have today.
So I get it if people are still in there for the tech but Like said before, can't hurt my psychology / go into almost imo addiction at this point of recouping loses etc. just because i like the tech. but I get it if people are like that, I met someone online like that who genuinely loved crypto for the tech and thus was investing into them and I was just shocked man (I also like such tech but I don't make my wallet to speak that) I always wanted to prove them wrong because I wanted to be right but I mean I am right from my pov and they are right from theirs.
Clarification: Unity's "Industry" license is only for non-gaming and non-entertainment applications (e.g. automotive, architecture, etc.). So this doesn't impact developers developing games with Unity.
Until it's an established payment model for one product category, after which it fill feel more natural to extend it to others.
The worst part of it isn't even that devs would get their wallets shaken out but that it's really just surveillance in disguise. Those apps would “““have to””” spy on me as an end-user in order for them to know what to charge.
I think phoning home is the platform for data collecting ("advertising") revenue.
Now thinking about it, its so valid point, how would that even work though if I am being honest
like I am pretty sure that the only way that they can do this is via giving it internet access and if that's the case, I wonder how much spying it does on our computer before sending it to unity headquarters in the name of this industry fees
Please, someone create a #usegodot or some twitter thing to just get it trending. We need to use goodot (I tried typing godot but I wrote goodot TWICE which is so funny and ironical so I am keeping it here)
Also I wonder how it might stand in eu / gdpr
Unity knows what project you're building and if you've built it under a paid license before. If they notice you using a free license, they'll go after you.
Unreal already has % of revenue. How do they track that, and is this any different?
Aka my guess it's a combination of trust, verification using public numbers (like downloads on Steam) and the ability to do audits of some kind?
Unity has always had a separate license for the other types of applications, so it's a slippery slope argument without a slope.
The issue here is the surveillance aspect.
*for now
Thank you. I really do not understand why anyone trusts Unity to keep this for only non-entertainment if it proves successful. They only backed off before because the backlash was so bad. Assuming that means they won't try to find ways to slowly bring it back in the future is dangerous to me.
That sounds well and good, but Unity forced my last company into the more expensive license unilaterally and with no discussion. They doubled our costs just because they can.
At this point, we should all treat Unity like we do Broadcom. Utterly toxic and should be avoided at all costs because they will shake you down and leave you with a lesser product for no reason other than blind greed.
Nothing Unity does will ever recover the goodwill they nuked for money
I would expect no less from a company that acquired/merged with IronSource...
Did you change to another engine? If so, which one? If not, what prevented you from doing so?
Genuinely curious.
It makes less sense in automotive or architecture than games. Games scale incredibly well and practically for free, cars not so much.
It does, though, because it means you don't have the freedom to pivot to other industries, or to fork for use in industry, which is a thing that can happen. It's definitely a reason to consider avoiding Unity.
The title of this post is just straight up wrong and should be changed or this post flagged. They didn't reintroduce the "Runtime Fee" nor is it called that anywhere on the Unity site. It's an entirely different pricing setup that is virtually identical to Unreal's, just a bit cheaper.
Yes what the hell is wrong with this title. Where on the pricing page does it say the Industry plan require a runtime fee?
Unity's failure to communicate will be studied for decades.
They really should of straight matched Unreal's revenue cut from the start, and maybe offer a deduction for site licenses.
Instead they announce something like a 20 cent fee per "initial interaction" which they track via embedded spyware. You had a massive backlash from indie developers who realistically weren't Unity's target in the first place.
People who never programmed or made a commercial product already complaining Unity is coming for them.
That said, Godot is often good enough for what most new programers can actually do.
It's also OK for certain non gaming projects. No need to worry about Unity deciding your not making a game and hiking your fees.
> something like a 20 cent fee per
They announced it, but based on their actual pricing tables effectively nobody outside of a tiny extremely unlucky proportion of users would have paid that much. The effective fee was several times smaller and they also switched to a per project instead a per company revenue limit for personal tier (which would have resulted in a significant price cut for a quite a few people).
Yet nobody noticed any of that because their announcements were incomprehensible .
Not that I am a fan of the whole pricing model but they were so exceptionally bad at communicating it. Like it's hard to even fathom what sort of incompetent idiots they had running their marketing department (I mean an average intern would have had handled it better). IMHO it would have been hard to bungle it more even if they tried doing it on purpose...
Herd safety comes from sticking together.
There's no mention of a fee similar to the infamous Runtime fee (which charged per install) here; instead, the closest thing on this page is a mention in the FAQs about how if the Unity runtime is included in a commercial product, then not only do you need permission from Unity to do so but you also will give Unity a fee that is roughly equivalent to 4% of the software's revenue.
This license appears to be intended for users using Unity to augment their business' operations; creating a commercial product with the runtime is treated as an edge case under this license.
The last CEO lost his job over the backlash from the runtime fee. Guess you can try to boil the frog again at a lower temperature.
They must have raised money based on this plan -- the board must be holding them to execute it again to hit the projected IRR. If they had full control of their own destiny, I think most operators would just focus on a different business model.
Not a raise, they merged with ironSource in 2022 (adtech). A new business model was likely baked in:
https://kotaku.com/unity-ironsource-merger-ad-tech-layoffs-1... https://mobilegamer.biz/inside-unitys-troubled-4-4bn-ironsou... https://unity.com/news/unity-completes-merger-ironsource
And there's the real reason to permanently distrust Unity. Not what they're doing, who they are. They're a scorpion. Doesn't matter how long it's been since they stung someone. It's in their nature.
I've been building with unity for some time now and the only thing that actually registers for me is the steam cut. I don't care about the historical drama or per seat licenses if we "make it". Valve is a much bigger mouth to feed in any reality.
Making games is hard and worrying about stuff like this is virtually guaranteed to ensure your failure. Having 100% of $0 isn't gonna take you very far.
In terms of tooling experience, Unity does provide a very compelling blend. If you have any Java or C# background at all, it's very easy to get productive quickly. I think the integration between VS and the unity editor is exceptional.
Their tooling is starting to show it's age, meanwhile competitors are advancing. I understand you were sold the dream that Unity will be your partner but they won't, ever, as you are their customer.
If you want to make a game, go for it. If you want to make one that works well into the future, I would question going with Unity. (fmr creator of Reactor 3D, contributor to UnrealEngine, donator to Godot, grand-uncle to MonoGame, I know this space).
Thank goodness I went full tilt into Godot (and became a donor) after Unity’s last controversy.
Godot is much more hacker friendly than Unity, IMO. Ymmv
Unity has been losing money for years, not sure I would incorporate them into anything business critical.
They're going to feel all kinds of pressure to monetize users harder, and if they fail at that, they go bankrupt.
https://valustox.com/U
Wow! Do you have a sense why it's not a profitable business for them? Just on the face of it, they have they have what is arguably the dominant product in this category, and they charge a reasonable license fee to use it.
I find it worrying if "make good software and sell it to people" isn't sufficient to have a profitable business.
And of course, Unity doesn't merely sell licenses, they also run an asset store and take a cut from every transaction, a business model that has been gold for other technology companies. Of course the market for Unity assets is smaller than mobile apps, but this is in addition to actual Unity licenses.
I do not have any insight into Unity besides looking at that plummeting profit graph.
But if they have a great product and a high price, then maybe they're just using way too many resources as input. It's easy to see that happening with bloated org charts / massive cloud bills / lots of overhead of some sort.
Is the fee reasonable if the company charging it has trouble making a profit?
I have no clue how profitable Unreal Engine is for Epic Games or if its subsidized by Fortnite. I believe their pricing structure only became favorable after that smash hit.
Well I guess that was my question! But starting at $200 per month per person seems relatively expensive, I'm surprised that's not enough to make a profit. (There is a free version, but as far as I know virtually no professional project is able to use that.)
Not quite -- their pricing structure improved before that, when Tencent bought a large minority share.
You can see their earnings announcements. They are making money across the board. Not losing it like you've stated
> GAAP net loss was $107 million, with a margin of (24)%.
https://investors.unity.com/news/news-details/2025/Unity-Rep...
Unity has had different licenses for non-gaming for at least a decade. E.g. gambling has always required a special license. See this Reddit thread from 2015.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Unity3D/comments/35xt2r/unity3d_gam...
Based on job adverts, gambling is huge for Unity, even casino cabinets. It surprises me, you wouldn't think there'd be room for so many players in that market.
I would guess it's because of regulatory compliance. You really don't want to release slots with a major payout but, and if you do, you want to be able to throw the blame at Unity.
Unity is the de facto engine for a number of the interactive gambling machines you find in U.S. casinos.
That's why Cocos engine is still popular (in gambling). Godot is also getting popular in this field.
Unfortunately this kind of stuff will eventually kill C# adoption in gaming.
With Unreal on one side, and Godot on the other, where while C# is supported, it is mostly for Unity refugees, there are very few other options left.
Yes there are MonoGame, FNA, Stride and so on, but they lack the same kind of mindshare across the industry.
I disagree. I believe there are enough game developers out there who enjoy using C# that would look for it in their next game engine. If Unity is gone it would leave a large hole to fill.
The upside is Unity's C# support is the worst available in any game engine. It's stuck on an old C#/.NET version, .NET (Core) runs C# code 2-5x faster than Mono (and IL2CPP) [1], and its garbage collector is slower than the one Mono ships with (which is also slower than .NET).
[1] https://xoofx.github.io/blog/2018/04/06/porting-unity-to-cor...
Why do you see C# adoption in gaming as desirable? Honest question. I think it's a good enough language, but why would it be a good fit specifically for building games?
Because I am firm believer in managed languages, and while I am also big into C++, I would like to still see the Xerox computing vision become reality on my lifetime.
Game developers usually are the last ones to move, and tend to do so due to external factors, mostly pressed by platform owners.
It was like that when we moved from Assembly in 8 and 16 bit platforms, slowly into Object Pascal (Mac/PC) and C.
Then it took until Watcom C/C++ on PC, and PlayStation 2 SDK, for C++ to finally start being taken seriously by game devs, then XBox did the rest on console space.
C# had a first victory in 2004 with Arena Wars, in OpenGL
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_Wars
Managed DirectX was already around, then XNA on XBox Live Arcade was the needed push.
When Microsoft killed in name of C++ and replaced it with DirectX TK, as usual in Windows in their territorial attitude, Mono project came up with MonoGame as rescue.
This is what enabled them to eventually join efforts with Unity, when they were rewriting the engine to be cross platform, and go beyond OS X.
Eventually Unity alongside C#, use to have a certain Flash like vibe, and for many, the entrypoint into the .NET ecosystem.
So it is kind of sad see this go away.
I don't believe in the one true language for everything, other than Timex BASIC, the moment I learned Z80, I have been a polyglot ever since.
A cool designed game, even in PyGame, has probably more entertainment value, than yet another remake in Unreal running on a PlayStation 5 Pro.
I'm not the parent poster, but to me it's not about C# in particular, but that there is basically no other well-supported gamedev framework in a language that's 1) statically typed, 2) garbage-collected for safety and productivity, 3) has decent performance, and 4) has good tooling/IDEs. JavaScript, C++, and Python/GDScript are all missing at least one of those. Java could possibly fill the gap, but it's still clunkier to program in than C#, and no Java game framework has much traction.
I'd be ecstatic if there were something checking those boxes that wasn't owned by Microsoft.
I replied on a sibling thread.
However I would point out that before Unity took off, jMonkeyEngine had a good following.
And since reference counting is also garbage collection from CS point of view, I would add Swift with the game development kits, however that is pretty much Apple only, thus not really the same league.
Microsoft unfortunately since XNA, the whole DirectX team has been anti .NET, they didn't even provided Windows Runtime Components for .NET Native, even though it would have been relatively easy to do so, as it is based on COM (plus some extras).
The moment key people responsible for XNA left the building, it was done.
https://youtu.be/wJY8RhPHmUQ?si=QvtVZHhB6ZhT95eT
jMonkeyEngine is on my list of things I want to do a project in. I hope it continues to get support. It might be better for 3D than Godot (based on hearsay anyway)
This is the standard strategy with these things it seems. Claim to remove the unpopular new idea, wait like 6 months and then secretly reintroduce it hoping the second wave have saturated the energy people feel like spending on it or that it goes under the radar.
I heard really great things about Godot...
I've been playing around with Godot for the past few months and as someone new to gamedev, it's been a really good experience. Wrapping my head around some gamedev-specific concepts has been tough, but that would be true regardless of the tooling.
Spend some time learning blender too, you’d be surprised at how much overlap in concepts there are. Texture mapping, models, camera, positioning, it’s all the same.
Funny you say that - my recent forays into blender have started bearing fruit and I'm sure it's because of what I learned in Godot. Previous attempts were not successful at all.
It's all a feedback loop...
Crazy things can be done once you learn it though. It's just math underneath. You don't need to know the math per se but understand what's going on under the hood, what is "world coordinates" vs "local coordinates" vs "device normal coordinates". What is a material, a texture, a light source (how many can I use at once in a single pass?), what is a pass?, what is culling, what is a face, index, weight, or bone? All 3d programs, whether it's 3DS Max, Maya, Blender, Unity, Unreal, Three.js, all share a pretty similar concept of these things. Some abstract it further into just a buffer (vulkan, metal, wgpu) that you can do with as you please on the gpu side.
I had some fun just the other day making earth (again) in three.js (https://gabereiser.github.io/earth) with physically accurate shaders. Once you learn, it's actually really fun.
Most of the outrage was over it applying retroactively and that it was by download, which is quite frankly just a horrible idea and probably why it's not in this rendition.
A percentage of revenue is already what their biggest competitor (Unreal) does, and if they had announced that new versions had it they would have had backlash but not nearly to the extent that occurred.
Unity hasn't been profitable in 5 years, the revenue percentage doesn't even sound unfair, though the download fee was obviously exploitative.
So somehow Unity gave away or sold part of its engine and now China has a different fork of Unity that has some of the Unreal features built in along with lots of work on Cel-Shading.
While working at Unity I discovered my commits were being mirrored to a seperate github for china, where local chinese engineers hosted a fork of my teams service running on tencent cloud, re-engineering the DB etc to make it work with
Neither my product owner, tech lead, or skip-level knew about it and were surprised when I showed them
Can you give a link to learn more about it?
Snippet from Wikipedia: "In August 2023, Unity China announced that it would soon launch a Chinese edition called Tuanjie Engine based on Unity 2022 LTS, which includes support for Chinese platforms like Weixin Mini Game, OpenHarmony and AliOS."
> So somehow Unity gave away or sold part of its engine and now China has a different fork of Unity that has some of the Unreal features built in along with lots of work on Cel-Shading.
Surely "china" had access to unity this entire time, no? Isn't this the entire point of open source? "Unity" needs to provide some value if it wants to retain control of what code is being executed.
Unity is certainly not open source, although it is source available for certain plans. They are talking about the Chinese subsidiary of Unity itself
"What happens if I am distributing the runtime for commercial purposes?
According to our terms of service, the distribution of the Unity runtime for commercial purposes by Industry Customers requires explicit authorization from Unity and is subject to a fee ("Distribution License') which is generally equivalent to 4.0% of the revenue generated by the software product that incorporates the Unity runtime (discounts may apply). Please contact sales to discuss further."
For folks who didn't make the move to Godot the LAST time Unity pulled this, there's Godot... (not saying that move is easy for everyone, but am just sayin'...)
This shows once again that Unity is an unreliable option for new projects. The worst part is not the 4% fee, but the bluntness with which Unity has administered these changes. They show that any terms can change at any moment.
If the US can do it, why can't everyone else
Godot is entirely unsuitable for the types of non-gaming commercial applications subject to this license (which has been around for over a decade in similar form).
Also...a 4% license for the underlying platform upon which your product is based is relatively cheap by historical standards. The numbers used to be well into the double digits.
What about Godot makes it unsuitable?
As soon as companies don't give public concrete numbers/tables/etc. and instead tell me to "contact sales for pricing", I know they're not worth the headache of dealing with them trying to squeeze as much money as possible from me and every other individual customer.
I.e. Fuck Off!
From the top of the linked page:
>"$450.00/mo per seat"
>"$4,950.00/yr per seat"
And under the question "What happens if I am distributing the runtime for commercial purposes?":
>"Industry Customers requires explicit authorization from Unity and is subject to a fee ("Distribution License') which is generally equivalent to 4.0% of the revenue generated by the software product that incorporates the Unity runtime (discounts may apply)"
Since the title on here is "Unity reintroduces the Runtime Fee [...]" I assumed that there would be more to it the simple outright subscription plan(s), making me scroll down to the FAQ of the linked page where you can find the following bit of drivel which turned me right off:
> "How much does Unity Industry cost?
> For seat-based and floating license pricing, contact Sales."
Also, according to the "order summary" you get when have the default "monthly" option selected and click "Choose Plan", it says:
> "Commitment
> 8/21/2025 - 8/21/2026.
> Your total annual commitment is €4,968.00 excluding VAT /Sales Tax. ¹
> You will be charged for one month today and every month thereafter, and your subscription will > automatically renew at the end of your annual term. You can manage your subscription in your Unity Account."
indicating that even though you selected the "monthly" option it's still going to be an annual subscription and I just can't be bothered to wade through what're probably mountains of Legalese during my private time to find out how they're planning to keep you captive in that subscription for the whole year anyway.
Unity have demonstrated time and time again they're trying to screw their customers, so fuck 'em, use literally any other engine like Godot which has been recommended in this thread already. I don't think the company will reverse their course again now that the original outrage has cooled off but hopefully at least some some bottom-feeding manager types responsible for this get fired for "underperforming" if/when enough devs take their money elsewhere.
¹ in € it's 414€/mo or prepaid 4554€/a, essentially 11 instead 12 months if paid in advance
I'm not defending unity, fuck 'em, I'm just saying that the pricing is right on the page that you said pricing isn't available on.
Literally next week Bitnami will pull all of their Docker images from public use. They were relied on by many people but since being bought by Broadcom, they just exist to be milked for cash.
They don't list a price for their new enterprise subscription, instead making you contact their 3rd party, outsourced sales team.
The quote I heard from a colleague was USD5'000 pcm. No wonder they don't want to publish that!
From https://devoriales.com/post/402/from-free-to-fee-how-broadco... :
Broadcom has officially confirmed major changes to Bitnami's free container catalog, effective August 28, 2025, transitioning millions of developers from free access to paid subscriptions ranging from $50,000-$72,000 annually.
Stuff like this is why I chose to refactor my project into Godot. It lacks many of the UE/Unity features, so I am building many things myself, but the freedom I get feels worth the work. I have also been working on "commercial" subparts (like a digital twin system for things like datacenters), which this would apply to. I'm increasingly assured my decision was correct.
I am fully against this approach, but I do wonder what impact this kind of model might have on the absolute garbage shovelware/adware games that litter app stores, and subsequently the countless ads that try to push people towards those games.
Obviously, don't develop anything with unity (or unreal) if you can avoid it.
What does Unreal have to do with this?
the entire games industry is reminiscent of cryptocurrency. hundreds of thousands of completely worthless "titles". sole purpose in life is to grab unwitting customers money and run.
in this case, unity grabbing a percentage seems like a trading exchange taking a cut. is the exchange really the 'bad guy' in this interaction?
its the 2020s: We're All Trying To Make Money.
Games are art. Some people do it for money, some do it to express themselves, some do it for fun. What's worthless to you is very valuable to someone else.
Yes but it's undeniable that the industry has changed recently. It used to be, someone would make a game to express themselves, it would be picked up by a major studio, it would be expanded and polished until it had mass appeal, and became the next "blockbuster" game. Now, it's, someone makes a game to express themselves, and they eke by on a trickly of income, they fight for placement among the sea of shovelware on the game store sites, and they never get picked up by a big publisher. Meanwhile, the big 3 game companies are creating the same formulaic game over and over and, through massive advertising campaigns, have captured all of the customers.
>expanded and polished until it had mass appeal, and became the next “blockbuster”.
I’m not going to say that never happened. But I can’t think of any examples off the top of my head.
The fortunes of small independent teams have certainly risen and fallen multiple times over the years.
I can only think of examples where famous streamers made indie games go viral.
this is 1:1 what i hear people say about solana memecoins
Memecoins as art? I count myself fortunate to have not been subjected to that line of thought until now.
Yes, Also petition to just call memecoins ponzi scheme or scamcoins to not even ever let people think that its worth putting 1 cent of money on.
Scamcoins are comparable to disease or even cancer. Theoretically every scam is.
Unlike memecoins most games have utility via interactivity. I say most because there are definitely games like Banana that don't really have any interactivity, but it arguably had a different kind of utility: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aitVHsg0rWA
Oh no, they're fully irony poisoned.
Welp
Lets discuss. I genuinely hate memecoins with a passion but not indie games
Honestly, memecoins are just ponzi schemes. They are created on hype and people buy memecoins with the idea that it would trade higher and so on.
Noone in their goddamn right minds would just pay for an app showing some image of something. No, it is the idea that you can sell it for higher price, or if you can't, then why not just donate to them in the first place??
like if you think pepe is cool, just mail matt fury (I think he's the creator, just searched) some money and email him thanks on why pepe matters to you.
But nope people buy these shitty ass things just so that they can sell it to some other person believing the same dream as them.
And no, every cryptocoin is like this unless stablecoin in this sense but some coins have some utility that I can understand but still, if they have utility, just buy them when you want the utility man, but memecoins are the worst of the worst, just leeches on gullible people.
Indie devs are more like clippy (louis rossman, lets go, I am doing my deal spreading clippy) Once you bought them, 99% don't want anything else from you. They don't want you to sell it to an higher fool. they want you to play. they want you to give them feedback (both critisicm and praise) they want you to recognize the work they put in and they are proud of what they created which is why they created it.
Indie devs making games usually also take a lot more time and effort and that can only happen 90% of the time when you love the project than memecoins
But also I will admit that there are games that are not like that (think mobile ad games) and yes they are as much an evil/scummy as memecoins. Maybe a little less since trading factor and selling to others is gone but still some apps target little kids so they are worse in that. Maybe those apps take some time to develop but that's it. In my opinion yes shitty mobile games are comparable to memecoins, they are both (scams?), one might take more effort than other but honestly that varies but yeah even then they both are scams.
But doing the disservice of even comparing every indie game to memecoin might make you A) completely wrong, doing a great disservice while basically spreading lies that basically ragebaited me man B) the most downvoted person
You kinda ragebaited me no offense and I know you might be a good person. And its okay, misunderstandings happen. I may be wrong too, I usually am and that's why lets discuss if you think there is something wrong with what I said
The thing about whether they're a good person or not is that it doesn't matter because they're not worth replying to either way. You don't have a moral obligation to steel-man absolute stupidity, whether it's meant sincerely or trollingly.
I do think that we have a moral obligation though. And we can discuss about that too.
Basically, I think that this person who has this "stupid" thought had it because they were wrong in their reason and nothing wrong with that and they just showed the world that they have it.
Now here's what I think, if I mock them, they would hate even more and they would actually convince themselves that they were even more right
And if I say nothing, then they are just living in their own bubble and the algorithms serving them are either ragebaits or their own echo chambers.
But even then, if they are truly "stupid" (i don't think they are, they just have a wrong take), then worst case they don't change and even then I had fun writing the comment. but yeah I did get ragebaited in the beginning, they were so punchable as a face when I first read it but I mean, I don't know man, we need to burst echo chambers or atleast have good discussions around it instead of just making them live in their bubbles with wrong takes imo.
But I also understand that we have no moral obligation to, but I really try (I think) in this world to not make myself an echo chamber by helping others who are in so.
Not that we have to do it, but I got complimented once in some sense for it and I kinda aligned with it ever since.
Small things like compliments / actually listening to others can actually have the potential to compound so much for the other person that honestly its worth it in my opinion. But I think that I wish to get such reciprocity back, someone actually discussing things / helping others but the world just feels so mixed man idk. I just don't want to be shining hero but uh I genuinely wish that I can be the change that I want in this world
> Noone in their goddamn right minds would just pay for an app showing some image of something
Not to necessarily disagree with anything else you argued, but there's a small relatively profitable genre of games for consoles that are just a unity template with an image of a turtle or whatever, and you mash a button to pet the turtle. The reason these exist and people buy them is because you get trophies for pressing the button.
So "an app just showing an image of something" is not very far from what those games are, and a bunch of them exist and do make money. It's tremendously weird.
There are also games like that Banana steam game that exist as part of a weird microtransactions economy instead of existing as what most people would consider a game.
Hm, that's valid point and this is why I said in the end (I think) that yes some memes and games are comparable but not every.
Regarding about petting a turtle, the thing that I don't get is uh, who are paying for it. heck, I can just ask gpt 5 for the code to do so or why not just open source so small things? the only reason I can make petting things make sense is kinda like that banana game (yes I had heard of it) and to be honest, that thing still doesn't make sense to me and is absolutely a memecoin kinda thing and I think that they are targeting the same genre really. Men who want 100x returns because the whole industry is of liars who are selling you courses saying that they have 100x'd and you can too. Also the fact that people are genuinely so stuck in the world at the same time that the only thing that they think that they can reasonably do is buy memecoin (which is almost like gambling if the odds were 99% casino .01% you since maths stop working in scamcoins ) The same people who gamble man, its chasing the highs. Maybe memecoins are a little bti less illegal or maybe its sorta allowed / less shunned than gambling in the world makes it more relevant. I thought for more and I think I finally get it. just as how gambling is addicting, memecoins are also addicting.
Once people start they can't really stop just as in addictions, and uh the more they fall, the more they feel like it that the only way out is by shouting out loud about memecoins and making more people fall into the trap/ making it more lucrative/fashionable just as mostly any other addiction (think flashy casinos) I am not even kidding but this idea goes sort of mainstream because the same principle applies to bitcoin etc. too, pardon me for being crude, but digital gold my ass. As someone who genuinely uses stablecrypto and mostly uses native coins barely just to transact the stablecrypto. I never used to get it why the hell would people do what they are doing. I now actually understand. Suddenly things make sense to the behaviour I see.
Maybe some people believe it in because they want to be part of such utopian future idea that they have and so good for them, if someone's in for the tech, that's really good. But I'd much rather not do that since I don't want to fall into such addiction or trap or something and I genuinely want almost peace of mind in that sense. I am not compromising on psychological effects that I or heck anyone can have if they say their money fall in value and doubt about themselves. I don't want that. The best/ only thing that I will do is maybe invest in world index funds because I genuinely believe that their value comes out of productivity and not scams essentially. And its infinitely better than keeping your money in a jar and infinitely better for atleast my peace of mind than even normal crypto aside from stablecoins which I hold, I like stablecoins) Its just not worth it but maybe for some it might be and I get it but still they are a fraction of the real userbase and the real userbase is making things worse for everyone by being a speculating/almost gambling machine man.
I think I get it, some people loved it for the tech and they used it, then there was some utility for sure but then some (malicious?) people started to sell the idea to everyone that it would 100x (maybe they genuinely believed it) and then it got attraction by (stupid? people) and got mainstream news to either attract more (stupid?) [I don't like that word, almost is deregatory] and maybe more tech lovers too.
This all kept on happening and the internet really just spread this like a wildfire to almost the gambling state thing that we have today.
So I get it if people are still in there for the tech but Like said before, can't hurt my psychology / go into almost imo addiction at this point of recouping loses etc. just because i like the tech. but I get it if people are like that, I met someone online like that who genuinely loved crypto for the tech and thus was investing into them and I was just shocked man (I also like such tech but I don't make my wallet to speak that) I always wanted to prove them wrong because I wanted to be right but I mean I am right from my pov and they are right from theirs.