If this is the case, this most certainly puts Unity's recent decisions in a new light. Very aggressive tactic, and very underhanded. Still not working out very well for them, though. Honestly, I...
Studios currently using Unity’s LevelPlay mediation platform have already been offered a 100% Runtime Fee waiver, sources have told us. Unity account managers are also telling developers not using LevelPlay that if they switch over from main rival AppLovin or any other UA platform they can then unlock a Runtime Fee waiver of 80-100%.
UA consultant Matej Lancaric says this is an “attempt to destroy” Unity competitor AppLovin, which is “miles ahead” of Unity’s LevelPlay service in terms of both ad monetisation and UA.
If this is the case, this most certainly puts Unity's recent decisions in a new light. Very aggressive tactic, and very underhanded. Still not working out very well for them, though.
Honestly, I still can't fathom how anyone could've thought charging per install was ever a workable idea.
I'm really hoping that this is the nail in the coffin for whoever is making these decisions. This is a cash grab and a monopoly grab by them, or at least the start of one from the looks of it.
I'm really hoping that this is the nail in the coffin for whoever is making these decisions. This is a cash grab and a monopoly grab by them, or at least the start of one from the looks of it.
Honestly, this should trigger an investigative action from the FTC as anticompetitive behavior. This is pretty classic abuse of their market position, the sort of thing the FTC and the Bureau of...
Honestly, this should trigger an investigative action from the FTC as anticompetitive behavior. This is pretty classic abuse of their market position, the sort of thing the FTC and the Bureau of Competition are meant to shut down.
Just the fees on their own was bad, but it was just... uncompetitive, an excuse for people to jump ship (and a great way to extract more money from the people who can't). But the waiver makes it anticompetitive, it abuses their market position to put themselves in a better position and draw people away from their competitors. It's blatant, it's exactly the sort of thing the FTC hates, and I'm definitely hoping their ears are perked here at least.
In any significantly big company, there is never just one person responsible for making major decisions. There is, however, always a fall guy. The question that is much harder to answer, which is...
In any significantly big company, there is never just one person responsible for making major decisions. There is, however, always a fall guy. The question that is much harder to answer, which is different in every situation, is how much responsibility for that decision did the fall guy have.
Eh. IMO it really depends on the company's structure. Very large companies can sometimes still be incredibly hierarchical, with most major decisions being made by a lone figure at the top. And...
Eh. IMO it really depends on the company's structure. Very large companies can sometimes still be incredibly hierarchical, with most major decisions being made by a lone figure at the top. And also worth keeping in mind is that Unity's current CEO, John Riccitiello, was previously the CEO of EA from 2007 to 2013, which was right in the middle of the period when they were widely considered the "evilest", worst, and greediest of the major videogame publishing companies... so it's not like this move is totally out of character for him.
If this is the case, this most certainly puts Unity's recent decisions in a new light. Very aggressive tactic, and very underhanded. Still not working out very well for them, though.
Honestly, I still can't fathom how anyone could've thought charging per install was ever a workable idea.
I'm really hoping that this is the nail in the coffin for whoever is making these decisions. This is a cash grab and a monopoly grab by them, or at least the start of one from the looks of it.
Honestly, this should trigger an investigative action from the FTC as anticompetitive behavior. This is pretty classic abuse of their market position, the sort of thing the FTC and the Bureau of Competition are meant to shut down.
Just the fees on their own was bad, but it was just... uncompetitive, an excuse for people to jump ship (and a great way to extract more money from the people who can't). But the waiver makes it anticompetitive, it abuses their market position to put themselves in a better position and draw people away from their competitors. It's blatant, it's exactly the sort of thing the FTC hates, and I'm definitely hoping their ears are perked here at least.
I wish there was an easy way for the public to file complaints about this behavior to push these kinds of cases into being investigated.
In any significantly big company, there is never just one person responsible for making major decisions. There is, however, always a fall guy. The question that is much harder to answer, which is different in every situation, is how much responsibility for that decision did the fall guy have.
Eh. IMO it really depends on the company's structure. Very large companies can sometimes still be incredibly hierarchical, with most major decisions being made by a lone figure at the top. And also worth keeping in mind is that Unity's current CEO, John Riccitiello, was previously the CEO of EA from 2007 to 2013, which was right in the middle of the period when they were widely considered the "evilest", worst, and greediest of the major videogame publishing companies... so it's not like this move is totally out of character for him.