@aeva I mean if it is part of a tradedress I guess it make some degree of sense.
@ekg no this is just like every font you have to pay for lol
@ekg like one of them I was just looking at I closed the browser tab when I got to the part of the license where it said I could only use it to make at most 2 "apps"
@ekg and like my "random internet person emulator" says someone is going to say "but how will those hard working font people eat if you can use it to make three apps", which is a good and valid point—I might have paid them for a license that said I could make 3 apps. But their license only said 2 apps, so instead I searched a little harder and found a stellar alternative under an open license and downloaded that instead, which unfortunately means no font people will be eating today. Tragic.
@aeva I liked unitys per download approach, it's easy to measure, and it doesn't suffer from this kind of problem. Unfortunately people didn't seem too receptive to the idea.
@ekg well of course they didn't, you could go bankrupt by shipping a moderately successful game with the plan they outlined. it was a *terrible* idea
@aeva yeah it didn't really fir with how most people sell games. But I thought the plan was only for new titles?, never looked into it to closely as I don't use Unity. Just remember thinking it sounded reasonable, with the caveat that most would have to adjust their business plan.
@lispi314 you always want customers to pay after ability/willingness to pay.
Fonts does need updating as technology evolves, in the good old days you sold a box of metal types. If we talk about computers, bitmap fonts ( the old standard ) aren't really a thing outside fairly niche applications today.
Releasing something for free only really make sense if the marginal customer has no ability/willingness to pay.