How far can you take a creative app made with Unity without competing with it?

I'm designing a highly graphical GUI-driven desktop app, made with Unity, focusing on the creation of graphics and animation. You might think of something like Adobe Animate, Toon Boom, Synfig or similar. But I'm concerned about at what point this becomes competitive with Unity.

In Unity's licensing it seems to say you are not allowed to use Unity to create a competing product. Obviously I would not be 'ripping off' Unity or doing a 1:1 mapping of unity features etc. Or even including everything Unity can do, not by a long shot.

My editor will be mostly focused on 2D with hardly any 3D support. But one thing I plan to implement is a configurable GUI and customizable programmable tools. This means a user can add new tools and set up a state machines to operate the tools. It also requires therefore sequences of actions, akin to a 'program' which runs to perform processing etc. The programming interface would not be fully general purpose, not even text-based, and the functionality library would be only those things which I build into the system. Mostly this functionality would center around images, drawing, animating, moving objects around, building tilemaps and sprites etc, import/export of file data etc.

It also means the user has to be able to provide user inputs, e.g. key presses, mouse inputs etc, to operate the tool. Being able to assign user input to objects to trigger things to happen, begins to open doors to becoming able to more or less "make a game" with it. Granted such a game would be somewhat limited, but if the user can create visual objects, attach user inputs/controls to them, to move them around and so on to preview animations etc, it starts to cross over into being "playable".

While someone would need my app in order to run any configured interfaces within it, users could likely share and even sell modules as third parties. They can't add lower-level functionalities but they could build upon it at the higher level. I'm just not sure if this is at some point becoming too close to a 'game editor' that it might be considered competitive, even though it could export data/images/animations etc to Unity for use in projects.

It seems very vague and a gray area as to whether something is competing or not. If a game or app has a lot of configurability, providing a lot of freedom and open-endedness, at what point does the game practically turn into a "platform", where a user could make something with it which is radically different to the original form? What if you can modify the game, providing new assets/images/sounds and reconfigure the logic, maybe even with scripting, allowing a very wide diversity of different 'games' to be made from it, is it then becoming too competitive with Unity because of this diversity?

It seems that there has to be some aspect to the system that is fixed or unchangeble, which narrows the scope and is part of the identity of the software. Such as "this is a FPS game" or "this is a 2d platformer still." Or in terms of an editor, perhaps "the focus is still content creation, even if some of it is realtime". I just don't know where to draw the line.

If you could use an app which allows you to set up multi-state sprites, with some kind of basic state machine for swapping states and moving objects around, tied to user input, such that you could animate and operate the entity in realtime at the same time as working on drawing the images with pixel art, does this place it too close to a "game editor" that competes? If the context is that the user is just "previewing" what it would look like, does that make it "not a game"?

If the user can assemble/mockup environments, arrange a tlemap, put animated objects in a scene, and then even have a character walk around in it and interact with stuff in some built-in ways, to properly preview the artwork and see how it relates to the environment, is that still within the scope of experimentation and design, or has it leeched over into "playing a game"? Because someone could feasibly set up a complex scene with environments and objects and enemies and a player with a weapon that shoots etc, "in the design stage", and yet they could potentially distribute that "as a game" that runs within my editor. So has that now overstepped the boundaries?

Ultimately unity does provide a toolset which is supposed to be used for "making things", whether it be games or apps or tools, which means Unity WILL be the provider of "functionality" and technical possibilities, in all products created with it. And this is supposed to be okay. It's supposed to be okay to use a render texture and create custom geometry at runtime and provide animation and allow people to make in-game level editors and even desktop apps (e.g. use of UItoolkit etc). What do you think. Where are the lines drawn?

 

> What do you think. Where are the lines drawn?

I think you need to contact support and/or unity legal department.

 

Of course I already did but haven't heard back from them yet and want to get more feedback, thanks.

 

I would say you are safe as long as your tool will not allow the user to build executable applications that do not require your app to run. That's when competing with Unity begins in my opinion.

That will also be extremely challenging to achieve even if you were set out to do so since you'd have to recreate the gist of the UnityEditor namespace as well as being able to build for various platforms from within Unity's runtime engine.

 

Yes indeed including compilation to native binaries and such which is incredibly complicated. I'm not planning anything like that. Just an interpreted 'language' of sorts.

That said, if a person were to make an editor app, within which you can create tools and interactive experiences, and lets say the app lets you 'hide' the user interface temporarily so that you can fully immerse in the experience, is this now still within the boundaries?

Or in another example, what if there were a version of the app which acts like a "player".... like a windows desktop app which can "play" content created in my app. And what if that player app could be set up with a default content piece or clicking it would launch the player and show just that content on its own? Sort of like a "desktop runtime".... is that player now facilitating that the content is sort of "standalone"? ie someone could distribute their content thing and so long as someone has a player-app, they can 'play it', like how you can play a movie file exported from a 3d app in quicktime or vlc etc. Is that now breaching the boundaries?

Similarly what if data packages were exported from my creative app, as the user saves their project, or exports it or unity etc, and there is some kind of in-browser plugin or "player" which lets users view those kinds of files in a web browser, is that now distribution of standalone products? If they can load/use the files outside of my app and outside of unity, is that beyond the bounds? Especially given the aim is to use my app TO create data/animations/experiences etc, which hopefully other software would begin to be able to import and use?

 

Talk to a lawyer. No one here can answer your question with any certainty. We aren't lawyers.

 

I'm sure some people here have personal experience in these areas or can weigh in with their views. I'm open to all inputs.

 

Sure, it's your skin on the line, so I don't really care, but again, you shouldn't take and especially ask for legal advice from strangers on the internet. But good luck with the hypothetical situations with no merit whatsoever.

 

I don't think a lawyer will be of much help here.
There is no clear line so there is going to be a gray area of uncertainty.
What you can do is find examples of similar things that were built with Unity and whether there is any angle where your planned app is quite different from what exists. Like any sort of moddable or ingame design tool is going to fit the bill of being an interactive experience "made with something made with Unity".

I seriously doubt you're going to have any legal problems here.
I'm also quite sure you will not get anywhere close to the level of certainty that you're looking for. That's the realm of legal. Certainty requires a definite and final court ruling, or a settlement.

And then there's the realm of politics. Lawsuits have been fought over the most ridiculous thing, not because the big fish had much going for it, they just didn't want the competing startup to succeed and take a piece of their cake.

 

While ago, there was one game made with Unity, which was able to make other games in it. It was available on Steam.
I don't know much details, but from what I do remember (vaugly), there was some Unity libs used, which were against the Unity licence.
Game was eventually removed from Steam, based on terms breach.

Someone may do remember game name.

 

I would think as long as your editor doesn't crash every 5 minutes, you're probably fine, since you won't be competing with Unity, the #1 editor in crashes...



I also don't think a lawyer is going to help much. There is enough lawyer-y vagueness in Unity's EULA that if they want to go after you, they will.

I think your best bet is waiting to hear from Unity.

 

This is something you just have to accept that you'll never know if they're okay with it until you've released it. You could contact the CEO and he could give you a thumbs up then a month later a new CEO takes over and gives you a thumbs down after you've released your app.

I will say that I've created a similar application to what you've described and I had similar concerns as you. My client contacted the former CEO and he was okay with our application. But this was many years ago when Unity Tech was much smaller. I doubt you could get anybody from Unity Tech to even comment on your application now. It's probably just a big multi-headed monster these days that goes around shooting 'cease and desist' letters out of its arse.

Perhaps if you use a license that allows them to also benefit from the success of your application then they'll be okay with it. But if you use an old Unity Pro license then they may understandably feel a little left out in the cold if you're making billions.

But really, I'm sure they're reasonable people and you could come to some understanding where everybody is happy.

 

I'm not a lawyer but my understanding of legal definitions is that they don't perfectly align with what we normally think of or may have special meaning. A "competing product" isn't necessarily a product that has similar features but rather a product that your target audience may consider instead of another product.

Will your target audience consider using your product instead of using Unity?

https://uk.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/competing-products

 

That makes sense, because if someone chooses it then essentially unity "loses some business", if it's capable of doing things that unity could've been doing etc.

What that then makes me wonder is, if my product does a great many things which Unity in its standard form CANNOT do, such as for example providing drawing tools for making art, but my app also includes some capabilities which DO overlap with Unity, then is that still a competing product if only part of the product competes?

There will definitely be a lot of things my app does which is nothing like Unity at all, but then there may be some capabilities which lead to outcomes which maybe could've been done directly in Unity. For example Unity has state machines and a form of visual programming and so on, so does that completely rule out any and all kinds of visual programming systems?

 

Yes good points. To arrive at a total clear border and decisions about what is in and what is out, would have to examine a number of aspects under a microscope. Hopefully Unity themselves might give a clearer answer eventually and some sense of what the 'sensitive areas' are.

 

So let's throw forth some examples and you can tell me if you think such a product competes with Unity.

1) Adobe photoshop, which allows creation of animation sequences, artwork, gif animations, etc but has no realtime interactivity features

(I would probably say does not compete because it only generates still or animated image sequence and doesn't produce realtime interactive controllable experiences, and you certainly cannot make games or apps with it, but you can make parts of them)

2) Toon Boom/Synfig, allows you to assemble objects and define their movements on timelines etc, with realtime vector graphics, allowing you to create cartoons and other animations etc, but without user-input control and does not run in a "player", but can output animation files or videos files for playback in other players.

(I would probably say mostly it does not compete due to being pretty much content-creation and non-interactive, even though unity can now be used to make cartoons and films that are passive as well)

3) Adobe animate, which is the new name of "Flash", which allows vector-graphics drawing and animation, timing on a timeline, playback of animations/video, realtime graphics generation, user input controls etc

(I would say, it maybe sort of competes and certainly in the past people made "flash games" with it running inside the "flash player" runtime system, although it can also be used for advertising banners and so on, but is kind of a "platform" for interactive storytelling and visuals and even gameplay)

I think probably the closest to what I was envisioning as possible, would be akin to Adobe Animate/flash, due to the interactivity, animation, realtime graphics, 2D focus. But this is also the 'most competing' of the 3 examples in my opinion. Not that flash can do everything unity can do by a long shot, but it does overlap in some areas. You could use Unity to make still images and artwork if you wanted to.

Tell me what you think of these examples.

 

this is a bad way to make any real decision. if you are concerned about the law you need to talk with a lawyer(s). if you can't/won't afford that then it's probably not a serious question.

if you made a ton of money then everybody wants a piece of it. if you make no money, nobody cares. In either case, speculations won't count for anything - if you are in a legal battle it's whoever has the most money wins.

this isn't a math or logic problem to solve - it's risk assessment. And speculation counts for zilch in that domain.

 

Yes good point and I'm not looking to get into something that has too much risk involved.

 

So, the crazy question... why not just create this thing in something other than Unity?

It's pretty common for products to evolve during their lifetime. If you're worried about skirting Unity's licensing terms before you even start then that's a pretty strong argument that the tool might not be a good fit. Imagine your thing gets popular and your number 1 request is "let us export our things to run standalone!" Your success might be left up to someone else's good will.

There are a bunch of technical reasons that Unity's built runtime (as opposed to its own Editor) might not be a great fit for creating a DCC tool, too, depending on what you might want to make in it. It's all doable, of course, but at that point I wonder if you're any better off than if you'd just worked in a lower-level tool to begin with? I've not used it for years personally, but at least one alternative I'd consider is SDL.

 

Yah I have another development platform I could use as a second choice but it's quite significantly less capable and nowhere near as well supported. Unity has a lot of benefits including having a huge team behind it keeping it stable and up to date etc. Unity makes some things much easier or less painful. It's a good choice for full-screen high-res high-quality realtime animation. Another option is I could make it all run INSIDE the unity editor, but that's a bit of a last resort as it brings with it a whole different approach.

 

You might want to consider making this in something like three.js or babylon.js and then you dont have to worry about unitys licensing, but also its then easy to distribute as its online.

Still, I would await an official response from unitys team as ultimately if it is okay to use unity and you know unity, why not do that

Good luck!

 

nah, this is much todo about nothing.

Firstly, if you get to the point where unity is suing you, you've already made enough money for the app to be worth it. UT is a public company, they're not going to sue you unless you are generating revenue in 7+ figures. In order to get sued, you need to get on unity's radar and you aren't gonna pass this first hurdle unless you're making tons of money.

Secondly, would a customer potentially ask themselves, "should I use imaginaryhuman's app or unity?" - if this scenario doesn't even make sense because your app doesn't make games/apps, then you are unlikely to get sued. Nobody goes "should I use photoshop or unity?" they do different things.

Finally, UT will probably not respond to your question. They're not going to put a firm answer in writing based on a vague description of a hypothetical product.

 

Sorry but that is apallingly inaccurate legal advice, and I would advise OP to ignore it and contact both unity and/or a lawyer.

"They are too big and public to be likely to sue you unless you're making X" just isnt going to cut it in this instance.

 

The bar for passive aggressive semi-threatening e-mails is much lower though.

 

Cease and desist letters too. A company doesn't need a lawsuit if they can just block you with a letter.

 

Unless you get into highly specialized ones, a lawyer really isn't going to be able to help much with this. Software law is practically its own field at this point and finding somebody who specializes in it and won't end up breaking the bank if you're a smaller dev is basically a no-go. So no, don't contact a lawyer. Contact Unity.

 

That's not a good advice. A good idea is to assume that if a company has legal grounds to nuke your project, they will do so.

We have Nintendo as an example. Or Epic Games vs Silicon Knights. Now I don't recall Unity being aggressive, but that's certainly not a reason to relax, as long as you're in a jurisdiction where their lawyer can reach you.

 

Do you think Adobe Animate (Flash) is a competitor with Unity, where someone would be asking themselves whether to use one or the other for the same task?

 

Is this question for real?

 

You could just answer the question. Yes it's for real. Adobe's software does allow you to create animated realtime interactive content including a form of scripting and was known for creating a lot of games. The question isn't whether it's "good" at doing what it does.

 

A cease and desist is just that, a letter. If you do not abide to it, they do have to sue.

Btw. what about RPG Maker Unite?
Aren't they effectively a tool that makes games and is made in Unity?

 

The point isn't what we consider a competitor, but what Unity does.

 

AFAIK, that's not standalone, it's an asset for Unity: https://assetstore.unity.com/packag...d-the-description-about-early-bird-bon-253689

 

Ah right, did not expect that to be distributable via Steam, but it does say "Note: RPG Maker Unite requires the usage of Unity Editor game engine."

 

Yeah if it runs inside the unity editor as an asset it's totally fine for it to be a sort of 'game maker' thing, you could even replace almost 100% of the standard editor if you wanted, so long as you still need unity to 'build' the app. Although I wouldn't be quite so sure if you can produce a 'runnable' game in it that doesn't rely on unity building an app to make it work.

 

Flash is technically long time ago dead.
Last time I remember, it was extremely unoptimised for what it can do.
Adobe ones owned huge chunk of the market, but it ignored changes and lost battle (more like give away) with no effort.

 

Perhaps so but that's not the point of me asking about it. It's just one example of a piece of software which has a certain set of features, to see if people think that something "like that" would be seen as competing with Unity.

 

Yes, but only a very few people don't abide by it, and they almost always know they were breaking it.

 

The thing is, flash is obsolete. Adobe doesent develop it anymore for years.
Major browsers doesn't allow flash, due to security concerns.

Adobe itself advised move from flash to html5. Hence to answer the question, flash is neither a competition, nor worth to pursue the effort. Your market reach out is 0.

You are better of to focus on html5 instead, since you can play it pretty much anywhere.
And can do magic.

 

I'm sorry but you're totally missing the point. I'm not asking if flash is a current viable platform or whether it is currently competing with Unity. I'm asking if as an EXAMPLE OF a piece of software, in terms of its capabilities, whether it is competitive with Unity. It's a totally different question of a comparison of utility and whether some people might still choose it - not a question of how many. If flash had JUST been released by adobe today, with no audience yet, would it still be a potential competitor on the basis of what you can do with it?

 

IMO.

If you make an addon that works within unity editor, you're not competing.

If you make a piece of software that compiles into an exe that can produce exes, you are competing.

However, you need a lawyer. You're trying to approach this from common sense position. That is not a good idea, as law is neither bound by common sense nor adheres to it.

 

A target audience can exist before a product has been made, and even before a new category of products exists.

 

No, because it is discountinoued.
And it was so, because it could not compete with evolving market and technology. And as bonus, it lost market to apple.
So you are trying to aim for an obsolete tech.
It is like asking, if floppy disks are competing with cloud storage.

 

still not getting it, oh well.

 

Are y'all deliberately dancing around the question?

Yes, Flash was very much a Unity competitor before it was phased out. Any time a customer might choose between two things, those things are competing. There were many cases where someone would have picked between Unity and Flash.

That aside, it I agree with the others that what we think is irrelevant, and that I wouldn't risk a product based on the interpretation. I'm not clear on what you'd get out of Unity in this case, specifically because the runtime doesn't include the Editor stuff, which you'd have to at least partially re-implement.

 

That's kind of what I thought. When flash was much more popular with the web player there were huge websites dedicated to flash games. I don't know what the state of the software is now but a glance at it suggested it can apply scripts and produce html games and so on, so effectively can built for html5 targets still. I would say it probably is in the ballpark of being a unity competitor regardless of how popular it is.

I guess then the question is why. And maybe I would say it's because the exported interactive animations etc can be loaded by multiple third party software (swf format etc), allowing for widespread distribution, sale of products and so on. Maybe it can't run natively on a platform without a "player" but it's still pushing the limits there.

I wonder if part of this question is to do with whether a user of the software is going to be in "edit mode" or in "play mode". If a user can consume the experience and operate it without being in an editing mode where they are making significant changes to it, then a 'product' has been produced using the software.

 

Isn't "the Binding of Isaac" made in Flash?

 

Canabalt was if I recall. It's a hit game. So I'm going to say generally yes that adobe animate is a unity competitor. and that making an app similar to that would be competing with unity.

There's a lot of grayness though because at some point if we strip back certain "freedoms" or "potentials" then at some point it stops being a competitor. The question is where those thresholds are.

 

You need a lawyer, and you're overthinking it. If whatever is it you're developing works within unity editor as an addon, it is not a competitor. Probably. If whatever it is you're developing, once built, has ability to produce exe without unity editor, this is a competitor. Almost certainly.

 

I have no plans whatsoever to produce an exe from my app.

However I am considering a "player" app which can act as a runtime environment to 'play' content.