45 minutes ago, Septopus said:

Knowing you are in violation of a TOS for more than a few weeks is too long, knowing for more than a year is ridiculous, that is by no means out of nowhere... smh..  My patience would have run out with Improbable a LONG time ago if all I was interested in was money.

Unity claims that with no other details or explanations given, not even quoting the section that was violated or why it was violated.

Improbable claims they weren't violating it and were negotiating (for whatever reason).

Then new anti-SpatialOS 2.4 dropped and Unity revoke those keys and now Unity is angry Improbable pointed out new ToS forbids SpatialOS.

What did Unity want Improbable to do? New 2.4 (and Unity claims old one did too) literally bans game developers (but Joachim Ante says the 2.4 doesn't restrict game developers at all) from using SpatialOS.

The only reason SpatialOS games are okay for now is because Joachim Ante said they are giving them an "exception" to the ToS on the blog.

Would that happen if not for this entire drama that Improbable started in the media or would Unity go around revoking keys of developers of those games or demand more money from them silently?

The "out of nowhere" part seems to refer to abrupt end of negotiations from Unity's side and revoking of keys and updating the ToS.

Unity also claims they approached Improbable first soon after they got that investment which just looks HORRIBLE from the outside.

And Unity is getting into cloud too now.

So the ToS is so broad it's extremely easy to violate it and they do not enforce it until they see someone who gets big or competes with them.

Joachim Ante right now claims that section 2.4 "doesn't apply to game developers" despite this section literally saying to everyone: "do not use managed services we do not approve". Seriously - go look at their blog comment to see what he says, then go read the ToS - they contradict.

This looks very shady for Unity so far.

This is literally dictatorial tactics of overly broad laws that literally everyone breaks but that get used only to imprison opposition.

The "don't worry, you don't make millions of dollars so they won't target you" point that some people (and you, kind of) make is insane and no way to license anything.

I'd expect more of an engine that was described as "democratizing game development".

45 minutes ago, Septopus said:

None of this has anything to do with normal unity developers.  Making an SDK/Platform out of the Unity Runtime is the caveat that 2.4 was intended to address, according to your own quotes from Unity.  This is a partner level agreement who's negotiations failed.

The way I understand what SpatialOS does (and maybe I'm wrong) - they give you a generic SDK, you build an exe that uses it, you upload it to their cloud and they execute it many times and handle networking/seamless worlds.

They just happened to have 'GDKs' for two/three popular engines, including Unity, and now Unity killed keys they used to develop their GDK for Unity because 'negotiations failed'.

And Unity added anti-SpatialOS language to 2.4 last December so it's now completely forbidden (but Joachim Ante claims that section 2.4 doesn't apply to developers who can do anything they want and is giving out "exceptions" in comments on blog right now?).

45 minutes ago, Septopus said:

I'm sure it's the very same clause, the fact is, legal language is only revised when it has to be.  It's generally only updated when somebody finds a loophole.  Finding a loophole might mean you have a legal right to act on it, but it doesn't make it moral.  jmho.. 

If old ToS had a loop hole then Improbable didn't break it. That's the definition and point of a loop hole. Even in real life there are loop holes like double jeopardy and jury nulification and tax havens.

And now new 2.4 abruptly closed that loop hole (that Unity never even claimed exists, just you do) and let Unity revoke keys for breaking it.

Any moral, ethical or friendly arguments are long out the window since Unity uses purely legal/ToS arguments for its point and justifications, never even claims there was no loop hole, says that old ToS was broken and revoked keys.

45 minutes ago, Septopus said:

Section 2.4 sucks, everybody agrees there.. 

Joachim Ante says right now that it "doesn't apply to game developers", which makes no sense since the responsibility is on developer to not use non-Unity approved managed clouds/services. This literally makes no sense to me.

45 minutes ago, Septopus said:

Improbable is going to claim whatever they can that makes their side of the story look better...  feel free to prove me wrong there.    I'll say I was wrong if I am.

And Unity is going to claim whatever they can that makes them look better, like breaking of old ToS, or defending game developers or that new section 2.4 was a total coincidence so why side with Unity instantly?

You keep parroting Unity's talking points about how ToS was broken, sorry for vague 2.4, Improbable lies, Improbable knew, but you gave me 0 concrete answers.

Improbable also has less holes in their story and Epic/TS (and most people online really) on their side.

And by that logic every two party dispute is instantly invalid because it's always two sides that both make themselves out to be in the right. "A thief stole your stuff? That's just your claim! They claim you gave it to them for free! You're gonna claim anything to make yourself look good! I side with them!".

45 minutes ago, Septopus said:

True, and they stated they would be working on it over the weekend.  We all hope they sort it out the right way. 

Then they should do that first before revoking any licenses or doing anything at all.

If Improbable didn't attack first with such efficiency then would anything change at all or what was Unity planning to do with those games that are in breach f ToS by using SpatialOS?

Right now we have blog comments deeply contradicting the ToS with a promise on blog that ToS will soon change again.

I have no insider knowledge of any kind either and after going through all the blog posts this is my conclusion for now.

The timeline is:

1. Improbable makes SpatialOS and a pre-made convenient GDK for it for Unity and gets lots of funding.
2. Unity approaches Improbable to either tell them they are breaching the ToS or to try get them to become a partner.
3. (Optional: only if Unity did tell them they breach the ToS) Improbable claims they don't breach the ToS and lawyers up.
4. "Negotiations" (friendly or not, that doesn't matter) occur and fail.
5. Unity updates the ToS to make it clear SpatialOS is in breach and revokes the keys they use to make their Unity GDK.
6. Improbable writes a piece outing this move and to tell developers to not use SpatialOS with Unity since it's against new ToS.
7. Unity claims no wrong doing and that it's okay to use SpatialOS for ongoing games as an exception given via their blog post.
8. Unity promises to update the ToS soon again and makes claims on its blog that directly contradict it right now.

This actually fits all the claims in all the blog posts.

Unity says they said Improbable breached the ToS - maybe they did and Improbable disagreed with that interpretation?

Maybe for last six months it was a slow lawyer letter exchange until Unity said fcuk it and updated the section 2.4 to kill them off.

Points 5, 7 and 8 reflect poorly on Unity in various ways.

Point 8 also gives more credibility to Improbable because it's like if Unity doesn't understand its own ToS.

Unity didn't do anything illegal of course (I never said they did) but no matter how I slice it it makes them look bad in my eyes.

31 minutes ago, Hodgman said:

So Unity is telling us that they've been in breach the whole time, but didn't mention that they actually changed the TOS 6 months ago to create a situation where Spatial was in breach...

If you're getting that mid 2018 change date from me posting a mid 2018 then you're wrong.

I said 'this was that way in mid 2018' because that was snapshot of their ToS I found in Wayback Machine.

The date on that snapshot says February 21, 2018 (so still after 'over a year ago we told them in person' date Unity claims but before 'six months ago in writing' one). That anti-cloud 2.4 was there in 2016 already too. I just added 'mid 2018' 2.4 in last thread to show what it looked like before they changed it in December to add these 'no SDK + cloud bundle'.

Sorry for that misleading if that was it but it doesn't change much in the he says she says argument they're having. And 2.4 always sounded vague and like it's against almost any-MP.

31 minutes ago, Hodgman said:

And while I'm sure that Spatial OS is spinning things in their favor here / outright lying...

It looks bad they still have Unity on their website too. Zero mention that it's against ToS (which they agree with themselves) or that Unity okay'd it only for (seemingly) ongoing developments in their blog post. It's like they want to pressure Unity into backing off. Maybe they knew Tim Sweeney is a huge pro-openness nerd (after those op eds he had out about UWP or how UE4 gutted itself to get rid of all the too proprietary bits to let everyone have the source code) and that he'd jump in to defend them but that sounds a bit too conspiracy theorist.

It's also a bit sad they have this tech where you get an SDK but only they have cloud workers code and you are locked into their cloud but at least they have something unique enough and are upfront on their website about it.

31 minutes ago, Hodgman said:

The whole "we see this as a platform" wording is so vague. From the sounds of it, Unity is ok with people doing whatever they like with EXE's produced by Unity, but have a problem if people integrate the Unity editor itself into their products, and then rent that product on to customers. If so, that's a fair enough situation to be in... but no one is explicitly saying this at all. Instead they've put out wording that sounds as if putting your Unity EXE onto Steam for distribution is a breach of terms....

But is that what SpatialOS did? To me it sounds like they just give you a lib, you have to build your exe and use that lib in it and then when they execute it on their cloud it does its cloud balancing seamless worlds magic. And they made a convenient Unity 'GDK' to generate C# classes for your game stuff instead of forcing you to use their generic for-all-engines-ever SDKs. It doesn't sound like they let anyone use Unity editor itself (I mean - despite their Editor keys being gone SpatialOS 'works' still and people can develop in it and Unity okay'd that too).

Joachim Ante made some comments under their blog post saying that Steam, itchio, etc. is fine but he also says 2.4 doesn't restrict game devs which (IMO) it does with it's "do not use cloud providers we didn't give an official blessing to".

This also makes no sense since what would happen is I used SpatialOS's generic for-all-engines SDK in Unity, wrap it myself, upload exe - who is then in the wrong? They never even used Unity. Am I? But I'm the 'game developer' so ???

You do not put a 'yes' in any eula.txt file, or pass an option agreeing with and ToS when running a Unity made game exe (some software does it in CLI only installers since it can't pop up a window to tell you the license).

Quote

1. Itch.io / steam or other stores are not violating the section 2.4 because they are not even executing the Unity runtime in the cloud.
In any case we are completely aware that section 2.4 is confusing, and it is too broad. We are working on an improved section 2.4 that we will share soon.

The intention is that nothing in section 2.4 should apply to game developers specifically.
As a game developer you should be able to do whatever you like with the unity runtime in the cloud or your own servers.

Section 2.4’s intent is to only apply to “third party cloud services”.

The intent of section 2.4 is that “Third party cloud service providers” can’t build their own platform on top of the unity runtime without having a partnership with us. Where the Unity runtime is executed in the cloud with custom SDK extensions, essentially morphing Unity into a different game engine and then selling it as a platform / service that builds on our technology. We are super happy to partner with anyone, and obviously do so with many many companies.

2. First of all updates to the EULA only apply to versions of Unity released after the update of the EULA. It does not apply retroactively to older versions of Unity.

Section 2.4 has been in our EULA for years. We changed it in order to make the intent clearer.
Unfortunately it turns out we made it too broad. And it is not explicit enough in saying that section 2.4 in no way should apply to game developers themselves.

@Septopus

I don't know the details either but they DO have generic C#, C++ and Java SDKs and claim that any engine works with them, they just pre-made few 'GDKs' as they call them to support two popular engines.

And yes - they say they use the engine, not provide own physics or anything. I mean - it'd be crazy and inaccurate between your machine and their server if they ran own physics in a different engine and so on. But they only seem to use your exe. If no one ever wanted to run a Unity MMO they'd never execute a single line of Unity Runtime on their clouds.

So the way they made it sound it's like if you build a single exe of your game in any language using their SDKs or GDKs, then give it to your players to run normally (which will run no physics, show graphics, etc.) and that connects to SpatialOS cloud running the exe launched in some special way/with other argument where they will cooperate to make seamless worlds, do run physics, do not show graphics, etc. for the players.

And their Unity Editor license was to let them maker their Unity GDK? I mean - SpatialOS games keep working so it can't be needed for that since Unity voided them.

Edit: I also wonder if Unity would consider it a ToS violation to use S3 or DynamoDB in your game and then host on AWS?

Edit 2: I guess it'll all be clear on Monday or Tuesday or so, as Joachim promised a new ToS 2.4 to come soon...

5 hours ago, Hodgman said:

They did post that, it's linked at the top...

No, what you have are two headlines, one screaming Unity are guilty (which was retweeted a day later too, which is just going to affirm things) and one proclaiming Improbable and Epic to be the 'good guys' - no news article/post pointing out the Unity reply, instead it is buried in a post that it's unlikely to be re-read by anyone. That's narrative control...

As for the rest, there is much I can't say and won't say, in fact this will probably be the last post on the subject because I'm risking saying things I shouldn't, but as FRex has pointed out the TOS agreement change was in Feb of last year - Improbable had already been informed of their breech; 6 months after that there were notified in writing. Two weeks ago they had their keys turned off for breaches. Until they whipped up a media storm of this (again, two weeks later, almost like they were waiting for something... ) to try and get the public on their side they have given their own customers ZERO warning there might be a problem. They then tried to user their customers as hostages against Unity in a PR war (and in a news article used the term 'ransom demand' to refer to anything they might/might not owe Unity for no longer breaking the TOS - yeah, they seem like reasonable people...), meanwhile Tim Sweeney cheerleads from the sidelines and then magically pulls a fund out of thin air (at which point a lot of sentiment started to turn against them).

Everyone is focusing on the 2.4 terms, again because Improbable pointed them out as ammo, and while I agree those terms are #*@!ing hard to parse and understand it has led to the assumption those are the only terms Improbable have breached. Unity haven't said either way, just that they are in breech of TOS, likely this is a case of lawyers preventing more details being released because who knows what else might happen.

On a related note; anyone who has tried to work closely with Improbable has nothing good to say about them. Indeed a manager of mine, when hearing someone had gone to work for them a short while back was surprised and reacted with the statement 'they are lunatics [at Improbable]!'. The guy running the place has a bad rep with anyone who has come close to them. I'm sure Tim/Epic will discover this on their own, but frankly for them $25m is currently chump change to do damage to a competitor without having to do it at a technical level, instead just via a PR Proxy War.

I don't believe this union will last, indeed I wouldn't be surprised if Epic just brought them at some point... (Improbable are barely profitable as it is, have a lot of funding overhead, and the majority of their customers seem to be primarily Unity based so no wonder they have shit themselves at Unity finally enforcing the TOS after giving them a year to sort their shit out.)

… but I've probably just wasted my time here; in the court of public opinion Unity are guilty, Improbable are the victims and Epic is the White Knight riding to the rescue of everyone.

At this point I'm not even sure the full details and the truth would change people's mind about this...