(Unity) We have heard you. We apologize for the confusion and angst the runtime fee policy we announced on Tuesday caused. We are listening

laynelane

Veteran
14 Jul 2022
965
2,040
Didn't their own employees try to reason with them about this? And the execs ignored them and went ahead with it anyway. I'll wait and see how well they're "listening" before treating this as positive news.
 
  • they're_right_you_know
Reactions: KiryuRealty

toadsage44

Well-known member
22 Jun 2022
314
427
West Virginia, USA
Guessing they're going to pull the classic move where their initial policy was intentionally extreme, then they're going to dial it back so they can say "See, we listened!" They get their bag, and they get the positive publicity since they "listened" to what devs had to say. And if devs still don't like the policy, Unity can say "We tried to negotiate, but the devs are the ones who are being unreasonable!"
 

Nimrota

Veteran
11 Jul 2023
955
1,480
Didn't their own employees try to reason with them about this? And the execs ignored them and went ahead with it anyway. I'll wait and see how well they're "listening" before treating this as positive news.
They don't just randomly make these decisions they're often calculated. The PR about listening, which if you note doesn't mention any deliberate changes, is a method to weather backlash without committing. Likely they forecast this would happen
 

Nimrota

Veteran
11 Jul 2023
955
1,480
Selling stock right before this announcement, that's insider trading and highly illegal
Okay, first it's not insider trading. I assume you're saying that because you read other people say it without looking into it. The sale of shares by John Riccitiello was around $80k (2k shares) worth of shares, Riccitiello has over $120m (3m shares) in shares which he still owns. The value lost on the shares he still owns is several magnitudes larger than what he sold. The day after the announcement when people were saying it was insider trading, it was 750x greater in lost value on what he owned versus what he sold. Stock has recovered by then, but he still lost much more than he gained from these sales. Second, go and look at the SEC filings because many sales are done in advance and have reporting requirements to be legal. If you look at the SEC filings for the 8/9/23 2,000 share sale, you'll find the following: "The securities are held by the reporting person's spouse...The sales reported on this Form 4 were effected pursuant to a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan adopted by the Reporting Person on May 19, 2023." So the sale was organised back in May. If you want to stretch the conspiracy back many months ago, that he made this trading plan and knew he was going to tank the price in the future, alright, but the "selling stock right before" (emphasis added) part is completely incorrect and completely misconstrues what happened. Practically nobody looks this up, they just repeat what someone else said. It's incorrect. It's not insider trading.

Here is the form: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/...00163/xslF345X05/wf-form4_169420518678431.xml
 
Last edited:

laynelane

Veteran
14 Jul 2022
965
2,040
They don't just randomly make these decisions they're often calculated. The PR about listening, which if you note doesn't mention any deliberate changes, is a method to weather backlash without committing. Likely they forecast this would happen.

A certain executive at XBox taught me to be extremely skeptical of any phrase using the word "listening" a long time ago.
 

Snes nes

Banned
4 Aug 2023
735
580
Well time for them to apologize and create some unity I suppose

Sorry I'll see myself out
 

Alabtrosmyster

Veteran
26 Jun 2022
3,235
2,841
The company deserves to close shop.

Otherwise others will follow their lead.

Unfortunately, they do make a pretty core tool and this will make it pretty hard for some teams to move away from this mess.
 

Alabtrosmyster

Veteran
26 Jun 2022
3,235
2,841
Okay, first it's not insider trading. I assume you're saying that because you read other people say it without looking into it. The sale of shares by John Riccitiello was around $80k (2k shares) worth of shares, Riccitiello has over $120m (3m shares) in shares which he still owns. The value lost on the shares he still owns is several magnitudes larger than what he sold. The day after the announcement when people were saying it was insider trading, it was 750x greater in lost value on what he owned versus what he sold. Stock has recovered by then, but he still lost much more than he gained from these sales. Second, go and look at the SEC filings because many sales are done in advance and have reporting requirements to be legal. If you look at the SEC filings for the 8/9/23 2,000 share sale, you'll find the following: "The securities are held by the reporting person's spouse...The sales reported on this Form 4 were effected pursuant to a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan adopted by the Reporting Person on May 19, 2023." So the sale was organised back in May. If you want to stretch the conspiracy back many months ago, that he made this trading plan and knew he was going to tank the price in the future, alright, but the "selling stock right before" (emphasis added) part is completely incorrect and completely misconstrues what happened. Practically nobody looks this up, they just repeat what someone else said. It's incorrect. It's not insider trading.

Here is the form: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/...00163/xslF345X05/wf-form4_169420518678431.xml


1 - I don't think it's unreasonable to think that this change was planned for months, many people were involved, etc. I mean, frauds sometimes go on for years and years. People don't just wake up one morning, replan the whole pricing structure of their product then announce it before they go back to home at 5.

2 - do you have similar reasonable explanations for the others that are on the board to have made similar or more drastic trades?
 

Nimrota

Veteran
11 Jul 2023
955
1,480
1 - I don't think it's unreasonable to think that this change was planned for months, many people were involved, etc. I mean, frauds sometimes go on for years and years. People don't just wake up one morning, replan the whole pricing structure of their product then announce it before they go back to home at 5.
This is inherently illogical. You started with a premise and a conclusion, now I've refuted the premise and by extension the conclusion you're trying to find whatever premise still fits to keep that conclusion. That's not how this works. What is your evidence that this was planned for months and it is a big conspiracy? What evidence is there that it is insider trading? The insider trading allegation happened because people saw a sale before an announcement, with zero understanding of how any of this works, and started making up these claims. Unity can have a shit business proposal and it be completely legal. Again, where is the evidence to claim it's insider trading as tt's not up to me to prove your fantasy incorrect. If you want to allege this is part of a months long conspiracy to defraud Unity shareholders, what is the evidence? Or you're just imagining it must be true because Unity is bad? Or because you saw someone comment it online? This is why it is unreasonable, because there is no reason to believe so.

Such 10b5 trading plans are extremely common for executives because a great deal of their compensation is in shares and as such to get liquid cash they are required to sell it, and to ensure there isn't insider trading they create these agreed upon trading plans. Hence why sale before announcement =! insider trading. If you have evidence to suggest it, I'm willing to hear it, but it's not insider trading based on this point, and it's not insider trading because you think it is.

do you have similar reasonable explanations for the others that are on the board to have made similar or more drastic trades?
See above. They get paid in stocks, or want to get cash. Go look at Riccitiello's filings and you'll see he sold vastly more than this recent 2k share sale just to cover his tax obligations. That is how this works, it's not indicative of insider trading and again explicitly exists to PREVENT insider trading. I haven't looked into the shares sold by other executives, but often times they're brokered by a 3rd party with no knowledge of the company, again as a means to prevent insider trading.