From what I understand at this point, Adobe’s decision seems to want to nail Unity by confusing its developers when it comes to the new licensing scheme.
It is very important for Unity to (over)explain the terms.
The cases where the new terms will apply seem to apply primarily to paid flash-based games.
The problem is: who does pay for flash games? These games are not on mobile devices and on my browser I have never felt the need to purchase a Flash-based game.
So, to me, it looks more like a scare tactic aimed at Unity’s developers.
This will protect the development tools that Adobe is selling.
Let’s be frank: you either provide the tools for free and charge for the distribution (the Apple way)or you charge for the tools and provide the runtime/distribution for free (the Adobe way).
It might be a generalization, but the gist is there. Is Adobe planning to give the tools for free? I am sure as hell they’re not.
So, we should start complaiing that Adobe is not open and that they are imposing unfair controls on developers. (Does it ring a bell? – Adobe vs Apple)
People using the likes of Unity or UDK to create Flash games would not need the Flash tools. Adobe's Flash division simply does not sell tools to create the kind of content that requires 'advanced 3D' features. It therefore makes sense to expand their business model to include their most successful product (the Flash runtime).
I think it's absolutely fine for them to try that, but going for royalties rather than a fixed fee may just blow up in their face.
The cases where the new terms will apply seem to apply primarily to paid flash-based games. The problem is: who does pay for flash games? These games are not on mobile devices and on my browser I have never felt the need to purchase a Flash-based game.
So, to me, it looks more like a scare tactic aimed at Unity’s developers. This will protect the development tools that Adobe is selling. Let’s be frank: you either provide the tools for free and charge for the distribution (the Apple way)or you charge for the tools and provide the runtime/distribution for free (the Adobe way). It might be a generalization, but the gist is there. Is Adobe planning to give the tools for free? I am sure as hell they’re not. So, we should start complaiing that Adobe is not open and that they are imposing unfair controls on developers. (Does it ring a bell? – Adobe vs Apple)