On: Unity U-turns on controversial runtime fee and beg...

[debaserab2]

If the tool they use to make their game requires customers to install malware onto their machine you can't really blame the customer for avoiding software that is built with said tool.

[EricE → debaserab2]

Declaring they are installing malware is a pretty bold assertion. Care to back that up with something other than feelings?

[debaserab2 → EricE]

If you've followed the Unity debacle I assume you've already read about this, but a cursory search for "Ironsource malware" on google yields:

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/unity-ironsource-malware-came-...

https://www.pcgamer.com/unity-is-merging-with-a-company-who-...

[qwytw → debaserab2]

Is there any indication all of the IronSource or other ad stuff will not be optional?

Not allowing developers to remove it from their games would certainly be a step too far (at this time anyway, who know what will they come up with in a couple of years).

[anankaie → qwytw]

The problem is that there is no way to trust that Unity will not alter the deal in an underhanded way in the future. I do not want my purchases beholden to their capricious whims. I sympathize with the devs, but sometimes it turns out that platform decisions made in the past are bad. It is what it is.

[qwytw → anankaie]

True, but there are certain things (e.g. including spyware in games not using their analytics and/or ads solution) some of their important customers would never tolerate. Then again they might just make no-"spyware" a "feature" only available in enterprise versions...