Context: EGDF is the European Games Developer Federation. The article suggests that Unity’s actions create an anti-competitive environment and that the EU should step in.
Unity’s install fees demonstrate why the EU needs a new regulatory framework for unfair, non-negotiable B2B contract terms. Contract terms Unity has with game developers are non-negotiable. With the new non-negotiable install fee, European game developers have to either withdraw their games from markets, increase consumer prices or renegotiate their contracts with third parties. For example, if a game memory institution makes games available for download on their website, a game developer studio must now ask for a fee for it or ban making European digital cultural heritage available to European citizens. The three-month time frame Unity is providing for all this is not enough.
How can the market “fail”?
If the price is higher than buyers are willing to pay, then no money changes hands.
Isn’t that a market success? When, as the buyer, you don’t pay for something that’s not with the price? Or when the seller chooses not to sell something for less than they feel it is worth?
The only true market failures are market distorting, like monopolies or subsidies.
I think the article makes a good case. According to them, 63% of games are made in Unity and many studios are built to be entirely dependent on it, especially mobile ones. Unity knows that switching to another engine is a huge task a huge chunk of devs won’t be able to afford or have the time to, so if Unity decides to kill companies using it the market could crash, at least temporarily.
