🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉

Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!

In Light of Unity TOS Changes, Epic Games and Improbable Reaffirm Commitment to Devs

Started by
47 comments, last by Stragen 5 years, 5 months ago

We are going to disagree on the TOS changes; Improbable were always in breech, and yes their users were too (which imo is Improbable's mess to sort out), even before the clarification updates. The changes tried to spell out, clearer, what was already part of the problem, yeah they aren't clear and miss the intent but it doesn't change the facts that Improbable were in breech long before those changes occurred and should have informed their users as such - unless you are proposing that Unity should have had access to Improbable's customer list and gone to them directly?

Also, the concept that they "change the rules to put people in breech" would have only applied if those people had updated Unity AFTER the changes occurred - as spelled out in the reply from the blog quoted above. The fact that Improbable remain in breech with that logic applied means this goes beyond that 4.2 update/tweak/whatever you want to call it, as they can't be in breech if they haven't updated.

Should Unity have put out a blog post saying they cut off Improbable when it happened? Maybe... of course all that would have happened then is it would have looked like Unity were trying to strong arm Improbable via the court of public opinion to hand over money to keep their business going. (and my understanding is that replies to an initial Improbable statement about this had been prepared, just no one expected them to come out and just lie about basically everything.)

I personally hope more details do get out in the wild so that both Improbable AND Epic get a pasting over this... while Unity and Epic have been rivals for some time there has always been a kind of code, or respect, between the two - hell Tim was even complementary about the ECS stuff when it appeared back end of last year (and he'd been heading back up in my estimation, now however...) - this seems to have changed the rules of that game a bit imo; heck maybe it was the ECS stuff that rattled Epic and they've seen this as an opportunity to strike back without having to take a technical lead? That we'll never know.

Advertisement
20 minutes ago, _the_phantom_ said:

I personally hope more details do get out in the wild so that both Improbable AND Epic get a pasting over this

I don't think it's been mentioned anywhere in the thread, but my understanding is that you used to work for Epic, but now work for Unity, right?

I'm not saying any of your statements are factually wrong at all, but it's usually best to be upfront with your interests (especially financial/contractual ones) when weighing in on conflicts like this.

18 minutes ago, Kylotan said:

I don't think it's been mentioned anywhere in the thread, but my understanding is that you used to work for Epic, but now work for Unity, right?

I'm not saying any of your statements are factually wrong at all, but it's usually best to be upfront with your interests (especially financial/contractual ones) when weighing in on conflicts like this.

Unfortunately if you do point out such things everyone immediately dismisses everything you say as being biased, which is why I find it best to avoid pointing out who I work for, or indeed have worked for, in any discussion. Sure, it gives me the upper hand in internal information (which I can't share), but people also assume that you are just 'toeing the company line' with any and all statements.

Alas, short of getting to know everyone personally to convince them that isn't who you are, or indeed how the company works, no one will ever be convinced otherwise imo.

also, it tends to attract people asking for help or just wanting to shit on the place you work... and as it's now been mentioned in connection with this account I consider that firewall broken and might now have to retire this name. Maybe nothing will happen. Maybe it'll lead people to find out who I am and shit all over me. Either way I took the decision a few years and a few companies ago that I prefer to be anonymous.

And with that, I'm out.

18 hours ago, FRex said:

I still don't get why Unity is such a control freak (e.g. 2.3 above 2.4 pretty much prevents mass made physical digital art pieces, LCD picture frames and embedded appliances UI from being made in Unity):

Quote

2.3 Embedded Software Restriction.

You may not directly or indirectly distribute your Project Content installed on more than 1,000 electronic devices or systems if your Project Content provides the user interface or primary functionality of such electronic device or system without a separate license from Unity. This restriction does not prevent you from distributing your Project Content pre-installed on personal computers and consumer electronic devices such as mobile phones, tablets, televisions or set top boxes as long as your Project Content does not provide the user interface or primary functionality of such device.

I'm pretty sure that section 2.3 was put there to make us negotiate a license if we wanted to use Unity as the homescreen on the Fire Phone (an idea that was thrown around a time or two). 3D smartphone UIs were a hot concept at the time (IIRC Nokia worked on one too), and Unity likely didn't want anyone using their tech for free in that scenario.

Tristam MacDonald. Ex-BigTech Software Engineer. Future farmer. [https://trist.am]

7 hours ago, _the_phantom_ said:

Also, the concept that they "change the rules to put people in breech" would have only applied if those people had updated Unity AFTER the changes occurred - as spelled out in the reply from the blog quoted above.

See, I was under the impression that the TOS required you to upgrade in order to be supported(within a certain time period)..  I was also under the impression that Unity applies it's single version TOS/EULA retroactively to ALL versions of their product...  Am I wrong about these assumptions?  I can't seem to find a straight answer..

@swiftcoder That fits more than live LCD picture frame, yeah. It's still funny to run across such an artifact or that they have it as a ToS point instead of some 'Unity Embedded - X dollars for every 1000 devices'.

 

24 minutes ago, Septopus said:

Am I wrong about these assumptions, I can't seem to find a straight answer.. 

This comment's second paragraph from the bottom says no to retroactivity: https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improbables-blog-post-and-why-you-can-keep-working-on-your-spatialos-game/#comment-399879

Section 1.4 in this link says yes (edit: I just noticed the call all sub-ToSes collectively an 'Agreement' and say they can update this 'Agreement' at any time so 1.4 applies to everything) : https://unity3d.com/legal/terms-of-service

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

Yay!  So we got another situation where the blog posts contradict the actual TOS.. Yay!!

23 minutes ago, Septopus said:

See, I was under the impression that the TOS required you to upgrade in order to be supported(within a certain time period)..  I was also under the impression that Unity applies it's single version TOS/EULA retroactively to ALL versions of their product...  Am I wrong about these assumptions?  I can't seem to find a straight answer..

Unless someone has reference to Unity stating otherwise, I'm also under the impression that the current ToS overrides any prior ones regardless if you're using a version two months back with an older ToS. I recall mentioning it on their forums before and nobody corrected me on it.

I believe Unreal is version specific from what I reviewed, and you're only bound to the ToS for that version, and Unity holds a global ToS regardless if you're on 2018.1 or 2018.3 ect...

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Programmer and 3D Artist

Yup, 1.4 of the TOS seems to give them the ability to change and make the change retroactive.  Regardless of what they say on the blog.

People need to be more careful in distinguishing between "forbids" and "requires an agreement with Unity". These are not interchangeable concepts.

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement