Epic Fab - multi-engine competitor asset store

It doesn't matter how you and I perceive it, only how it could be used against an asset provider by Unity. At this moment, the way it's worded, it could be used to remove any product for any marketing materials (or even any content considered to be marketing anything) the "your" has (or had) that's referencing any other store, even if it's within marketing materials for a completely different product.

 

Exactly. Which is why you should contact support rather than create a post acting like it's somehow insightful.

 

Again, doesn't matter. Support can say whatever they like. This can still be used any way that Unity sees fit.

My original point perhaps needs reiterating... that one of these companies has very carefully limited the reach of this term, in favour of the asset provider. The other has left it wide open, to catch all sorts of things.

 

Except it does because you're passing off the difference as somehow being insightful.

 

It is insightful.

Incredibly insightful. The differences in these two terms are vast, stunning and (I think) indicative of the different philosophies of the two companies and their stores.

If you see it differently, fine.

However, what Unity support say to me, what they say to you about this clause, that does not impact the usability of this clause for all those others that have not sought clarification and/or carved out this catchall from their contract with Unity's store.

Can you see how this clause can be used by Unity?

 

How I perceive it doesn't matter, remember?

 

It's probably important to consider that Epic also seems to be targeting many other forms of digital creativity, not just games. The GDC speech made a point of this, briefly, but quite clearly. In other words, possibly things like Photoshop brushes, After Effects templates and all manner of other goodies could become things they sell.

 

What I'm saying is that your perception of this phrase is likely to be incorrect.

You need to be a lawyer to be certain. You do not appear to be a lawyer. Your perception of unity also appears to be negative, so you may be seeing bad intent where there's none.

There may be no "usability" of that clause.

To be sure that there is usability, you have to specialize in law. You do not appear to hold such qualification.

To prove that the clause is placed with ill intent without being a lawyer, you need to list multiple precedents where said clause have been used by unity. You have not provided such examples.

As a result, the likely scenario is that your perception of the agreement is incorrect.

 

Correct.

Can you see how Unity can perceive it, and use it?

 

No, because just like you I haven't asked them.

 

No, because you have to be a lawyer to see how it can be used.
Or you have to posses ability to read minds over TCP/IP to see how unity perceives it.

What you have here is speculation. Speculation has to be tested in order to find out whether it corresponds to reality or not. You haven't tested anything so far, and continue to speculate. The underlying idea of your speculation is that unity is a bad actor and placed this clause with ill intent. This does not match my real-life experience with unity and unity engine.

 

This isn't complex stuff. The differences are obvious. Ill intent not necessary. Don't need a law qualification to parse this document's general capacity, nor to understand the asymmetry between an asset seller and this store owner.

Not important what they say to you, or me. The possible implications for all others are quite clear. This clause can be used in many, many ways.

 

Yet it apparently is based off of your posts contradicting themselves.

 

This IS complex stuff. Law does not follow common sense and is not written in everyday language. You do need qualifications.

Your average software EULA also contains much more fun clauses which for some reason do not make you upset.

To make a point you have to be a lawyer, or you have to demonstrate clause being used in the way you describe repeatedly in the past. Otherwise it is just FUD. And you feeling strongly about it doesn't matter. During my life I've seen people freak over the most ridiculous things.

 

strong disagree. it's not speculation about bad or good actor. It's a commentary on the capacity of its usage, regardless of motives, intent, faith etc. It is what is, says what it says. Within its context, it's even more easily read as casting exactly the wide net I've suggested it could/can, and even more indicative of the different philosophies and experiences of these two entities.

whataboutism flag on the play.

 

It is a speculation based entirely on your perception of the situation. Your perception of situation can be false.
Your failure to provide arguments to support your point indicates that your perception almost certainly is false.
Like I said, people people believe many things. Many of those beliefs are false.

"500 points deduced from argument's strength. Current argument strength: -500."

Your perception of situation strongly contradicts my experience, therefore you need to provide strong arguments to support your point.

You haven't provided any arguments and are trying to argue in circles instead. So it all looks like FUD spreading so far.

 

You seem overly concerned about my intent.

Instead, consider the clause:

"No aspect of your product or marketing content promotes other marketplaces or digital stores."

If you look at it in context, you'll see that the Submitted Content could be perceived as a different type of content from the Asset Maker's marketing content.

Written more specifically, such that it absolutely excluded external marketing materials, this clause might look more like this:

"No aspect of your Submitted Product, nor its Submitted Marketing Content, may promote other marketplaces or digital stores"

And then these two terms (Submitted Product and Submitted Marketing Content) should, preferably, be clearly defined.

Since they're not specified and there's no comma, this reads as though it collects ALL marketing content of the "your" entity, which is the entity submitting the product, and is, therefore, not limited to marketing materials pertinent to this product on any platform or media, let alone just those submitted to this store in association with this product.

 

No.

There are people who believe that earth is flat. They also can write walls of texts, and produce infinite number of arguments to support their beliefs. That does not make their beliefs true. Same thing here.

I already said which kind of arguments matter. You haven't provided them. What you have is speculation. Or a hypothesis. You need to test it. You haven't tested it. Until you test it, it doesn't matter how detailed or convoluted your speculation is. You have to contact unity support, or a lawyer or become a lawyer or find examples of this clause being used in the way you describe.

Anything else is irrelevant.

For the record my opinion matches this:
https://forum.unity.com/threads/epic-fab-multi-engine-competitor-asset-store.1415865/#post-8910244
"Terms are largely similar on unity asset store and epic store".

 

No. You're not a lawyer. Adding additional terminology changes the meaning from a legal standpoint which is the only standpoint that all of this matters. Your opinion means nothing. My opinion means nothing. You need to ask a lawyer or you need to contact the company for clarification.

 

My suggestion, if you're relying on this belief (that they're similar), is that you should have a lawyer consider it, on your behalf.

just in case.

 

Nope.

Like you said, your opinion does not matter.

You have to be a lawyer to make a point, or you have to find a precedent. So far you haven't provided a precedent, and you're not a lawyer.

Also, we've wasted entire page on this nonsense, I'd suggest to find better things to do, and better things to discuss.

 

Neither of these is 100% accurate.

It reads, admittedly to mere me, that Unity could, using this clause, remove a product they consider to be from any "your" entity even merely mentioning another market place or digital store in any of their marketing materials, so wide a net does this cast. The "your" entity would then have to weigh up the costs of contending this clause, versus submission, to get their product reinstated. There'd be very few products making enough money on the asset store to justify the kinds of costs contending this clause would ring up. Hence my comment on asymmetry.

With this kind of asymmetry, there's no need for a precedent. Unity could just do it to make a point.

 

Edit: Whoops, there's nearly another page of this. :/

Context is important, and is being overlooked. The line comes from the Asset Store Submission Guidelines, (as opposed to the Asset Store Provider Agreement), and is specifically from the "Content Restrictions" section. Short of contacting Unity to clarify, that suggests to me that it applies to the "marketing content" included in your submission - i.e. the stuff visible in or downloaded from the Asset Store. For what little circumstantial evidence is worth, I just checked out two Asset Store vendors and their websites not only clearly show that their products are available for multiple engines, they have a competing store built right into the site!

 

Let's not get too bogged down and arguing over the specific details just yet. Epic hasn't announced specific details, just aspirational plans, and Unity hasn't weighed in on it yet. Which they aren't likely to until Epic has provided details.

 

Yep, that's in line with what I thought. "Don't advertise other stores on our store",pretty much.

 

I removed the speculative arguing. No more of that.