Recent ToS update blocks the use of SpatialOS to make games in Unity

That github is supposed to be used by clients and to be included in the binaries the clients upload.

I mean Unity said their problem was CLOUD + SDK = Platform. Are you saying Unity is lying about what their issue is?

 

As I said above:

So it's purely my own conjecture after reading through the documentation and seeing there's no conditional which ever prevents a Unity runtime being the server for a hundred games for other engines. You could upload a game with ECS then connect everyone else to it from different engines - headless is headless. Also you can inject functionality on top of that...

That is quite far from "hosting a server so my game can network with my game".

Even this late hour, even now, doesn't stop these companies from working something out. But the deal will no longer be so favourable methinks. Once you have lashed out, there's wounds to be healed and lawyers to be paid!

And popcorn sales to be had.

 

I think there are many people in this thread making unqualified statements and accusations from both a legal and technical standpoint. To have a Unity moderator fuelling this is in no way helpful and cheer-leading via their own personal/business twitter account even more so.

Ultimately, until any real evidence comes out all we have is conflicting accounts of what actually happened. Could I believe Unity tried to take a slice of Improbable pie? Yes. Do I believe that Improbable were either knowingly or unknowingly falling foul of the ToS? Yes. However like everything else here it is speculation and assumption.

What is factual is that the Unity ToS is troublesome. Yes we can talk about ensuring you seek legal advice; however the wording is too broad and ambiguous, which it seems Unity are hoping to fix. Indie developers starting out may not be able to afford suitable domain specific legal advice, if they can find it at all. What they are even less likely to be able to afford is bringing suit against Unity should they change their ToS in the future which suddenly pulls the rug from under them.

 

Gotcha.

So you're saying, based on your own conjecture.

That this is false.

Good to know.

Oh, can I NOT do that on my own hosted server? Is that in the TOS?

 

If those are your own interpretations and I might not mean what you're saying but I don't have time or interest to argue with anyone about things.

As a community unity user and not Unity staff I'm in my rights to chat like everyone else does, and this is the same for all community-led forums in the world.

Or would you rather even mods are Unity staff? Then you would have truly a corporate nightmare on your hands. I don't think I'm the enemy here.

I have no responsibility for you other than deleting any posts that react with angry gestures and swearing but you are way too cute to ever do that

 

Glad you noticed (wait, there's no blushing emoji? where do I complain about that?)

My point is, I think this matter doesn't need any more speculation.

 

True, the coffee is kicking in and I was responding to the xenko post - person made it out it was all a non-issue because C# works fine... and this does make one wonder: If C# works readily and so easily, just what prevents anyone using the Unity headless client in the cloud to become a service provider?

Nothing except the definition of a platform... it was worth the reply don't you think? food for thought.

 

Uhhh. The definition of platform being CLOUD + SDK, is not really in the ToS. Which is a problem.

I just want Unity to clarify their position. Personally, I don't care at all about improbable (I hadn't heard of them before this debacle). I just want Unity to be clear about what's possible with their engine and what isn't.

Cloud + SDK = platform is way too vague. The ToS is even vague-er.

The amount of speculation and conjecture we can *still* do even after Unity has technically "replied", is proof enough they really need to clarify.

 

Competition is always good to keep a company honest..

 

I see this as a way for Spatial Users to continue making their games, without using one of the big corporate baddies. Not sure how I see it as competition. Not every Unity user is frothing at the mouth to use Spatial. And the vast majority of indie games are not MMOs.

 

Is rare that this thread continues open.

 

After reading the ToS a couple more times... The streaming part is already clear at least to me...

So, if I understand it correctly, what is forbidden :

You integrate unity software/runtime to any managed-service/sdk/plugins/source-code, and use the integration to install or execute the unity runtime on cloud/remote-server.

You integrate unity software/runtime to any managed-service/sdk/plugins/source-code, and offer the integration to third parties for the purpose to install or execute the unity runtime on cloud/remote-server. (practically, offering the unity-runtime-integrated-service to other)...

It's the bold statement that's forbidden, not installing or executing the unity runtime on cloud part...

 

This seems to be THE hot topic. My take on it is that, according to Unity Technologies, Improbable was in violation of the Terms of Service for over a year. Improbable was not providing value to Unity3D customers/developers the same way Unity Technologies does and was infringing on Unity Technologies rights, hurting their business and their future business.

The question comes down to as a developer do we want to support the company that develops the software we depend upon? To me this is no different than someone taking the Unity3D editor and building their own game engine with it to then sell back to other developers as their own.

The greatest value for us as developers is when Unity Technologies is successful. I fully support Unity Technologies' quest to protect their business and their future business plans. Especially when it has been covered in the ToS for a long time.

When billion dollar companies are feuding I am going to side with the one that brings me the most value and that has always been Unity Technologies and is the core reason a company like Improbable even exists.

 

At the end of the day, Improbable have basically admitted they were aware that there were some potential issues. Why didn't they warn their paying customers or do due diligence for them? Why is it Unity's responsibility to do that, but not Improbable's?

Why didn't Improbable go down the route of informing and protecting their customers? Why instead did they choose to, very suddenly and directly, instigate an awful lot of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt among those customers. Because their Unity Editor licenses got pulled? Really? They had no contingency for something they knew was a point of contention with a company their business model centered on? They're not exactly a poor company, this is something they could have mitigated in all sorts of ways, but, for whatever reason, they chose not to properly do that. That's not UT's fault.

And the almost-immediate throwing around of opportunistic 'support for conversion' funds was incredibly cynical; venture capital wealth as band-aid. That's not fixing a problem, its bribing people to work round it.

 

Why?

 

If it wasn't then you wouldn't be enjoying insane performance with a free personal version (for example), and UE4/CryEngine would still cost you 30%

 

I thought that was a mistake.

 

Really confused now... best I go back to my game development... ciao for now!

 

https://forum.unity.com/threads/i-saw-a-ufo-today.610795/#post-4088770 here's my exact response.

 

Heh... yeah why? If they get really successful what is stopping them from leaving us behind lolz...its in all of our best interests if Unity remain not too hugely successful mmmkay We don't need them to be like Epic, I'm not even sure they need to release a game engine for anyone else now, and I already see community members at unreal forums feeling like Epic staff arent even that active anymore in support and engagement. So yeah I'm all for Unity being a successful business that has money to invest but not to the point they forget the grass roots.

 

I would say this. Clearly, in general, it's valuable to us as devs that Unity is successful. But not at any cost. It's easy to imagine things that could make Unity more "successful" but not be in the best interests of devs. As an analogy, AAA publishers frequently do anti-consumer things and make loads of money from them.

EDIT: And I agree with the last sentence of Player7's above post. If a company gets too big, it can be easy to leave the grassroots behind and lose touch.

 

A company protecting their business is in our best interest. Otherwise, we would not have all these cool things that Unity is bringing to us during this year. If they do not protect their product, they lose the ability to protect it. I am sure any of you who have copyrights or trademarks know how that works. If someone violates your trademark, and you ignore it and then continue to ignore it, then you lose the right to defend it.

Same is true with technology. The fact that they do protect it even when that gets the public all wild and crazy with fear, and they do it regardless of the damage inflicted and they are taking their time to make sure they can help us understand the re-write of the ToS is a good thing.

Instead of looking at how this all affects us, we need to look at Unity as a company protecting their intellectual property. It is not always all about us.

 

Like a 5% royalty? I strongly suspect that Epic Games is carefree about their game engine for precisely this reason.

 

In all cases? No exceptions? That's a very broad statement. All I'm saying is, that isn't always true.

There's nothing inherently bad about that. It's just a different monetisation model which will work better or worse for different people. Recall that plenty of people were seriously unhappy with Unity moving from one-time payment to perpetual license.

 

There is nothing inherently bad about Unity wanting to charge differently the platform providers either. Everyone charge on a way they like and the market will answer one way or another. And it is not worse for developers just because the platform providers need to pay a little bit more. (Not knowing the details - like how much more for example - it is futile to try to discuss it in more depth, of course)

 

Y'all need to get your heads set on straight: SpatialOS isn't just for MMOs. There are loads of multiplayer game types that benefit from that sort of scaleability.

 

Yes, but there are already many solutions available for non-MMOs both paid and free. It's only when you start looking for solutions for MMOs that you start having trouble finding a good one.

 

Right, but there is a fair contingent of people here who are going "spatialOS means MMO" in their reasoning, which is a pretty erroneous idea.

 

I didn't say there was. I just said it's oversimplifying to claim that Unity's success is universally a good thing for devs no matter what.

 

I, for one, am rooting for Unity's continued success.

 

As am I. But that doesn't mean that specific business moves they make aren't up for reasonable criticism.

 

Tha's the keyword. Or at least should be.

 

About Unity’s success: You know, I could do really awesome things with Unity in 2008, when UT was still a really small company and only mildly successful, and I can do awesome things now with Unity in 2019, with UT being that huge corporation that pretty much dominates the market. It’s a tool that helps me get a job done.

But something got lost. That feeling of unity, that feeling of enjoying to be connected to something that had a major potential but that potential not having been fully actualized, yet.

To me, this thing got too big and big corporations simply are not healthy (just look at what kind of mess industrialization has turned this planet into; current corporate culture, if not stopped, will probably finish it off). Ironically, I’m pretty sure a lot of the cool people working for UT would agree about big corporations not being cool (even though they probably wouldn’t agree that UT is now one of those “big bad corporations”), and people like myself still do work with Unity because we still remember, the tech is still awesome, and there don’t really seem to be worthwhile alternatives.

Just one of the symptoms: As much as I like progress and new shiny features, especially as Asset Store publisher, the pace of Unity has become a significant problem. It’s simply not sustainable for most of us.

And from the perspective of an Asset Store customer, some of my fellow publishers abandoning their fairly successful packages made me lose hundreds, if not a little over a thousand Euros. That’s not really that much money for me - but that investment being made obsolete, among a lot of other things (like forcing me into a subscription), does make me think about alternatives every now and then ... kind of like I looked at different options before I got into Unity.

That Xenko engine does look to me now very much like Unity looked to me in 2007. I have just joined their Discord. And from what I have seen happening with UT as they grew, maybe an MIT licensed open source engine really is the future. Or at least, it might be my future.

And you know, everyone can contribute ;-)

... and the MIT license makes sure that the kind of thing that just seems to have happened here cannot happen there.

I’ll look very carefully at that new shiny Unity ToS when it finally gets released. Take your time, and maybe look at it from the perspective “is this primarily about democratizing game development, or is this primarily about corporate interests?” ... because that’s one perspective many of your current customers will look at it.

 

Well said !

 

@jashan You've been around a long time, but didn't mention that Unity is aggressively open sourcing its tools. They're working towards a lot more transparency. They had nothing interesting on Github in 2015. It wasn't until 2016, and especially 2017 they had cool stuff on there.

 

I'm with you on this, years of using Unreal, Unity and other engines, the issue is, we spend alot of money in time, development and Unity can do as they wish at any time. .I'm not convinced they will do this to me or anyone else at any time.,..WHich yes can bankrupt a company...gamers are NOT forgiving if a game goes down... or for major issues, so this can hurt any game....So lucky for you and I we aren't released... but I have released game and worries me, Unity can do as they wish, at any time, causing more problems for me I don't want or need.. so I understand where you are coming from...The nay sayers telling us to NOT worry or calm down again, never released or run a business. If they lose there jobs or heard they will lose there pay checks, I bet they would act the same way we are...Just saying. SO I'm debating to finish my current game and never touch Unity again, as I no longer trust them...This isn't the first time I was burned.. by Unity. I dont go into..here. Glad people in development are so called protected....but what bugs me Unity knew for 6 months but told none of us? I mean cmon.

 

The ToS will be rewritten. I am not going to batty over that unless it is not done.

I meant, and you already know this, that they had to deal with the violations that Improbably committed.

The ToS was well after the violations and the warning. Scream all you want about the ToS but that door has not closed yet.

 

I agree, as I said, I will wait to hear Unity side, but the part that bugs me, I do use that service, and Unity them selves said they knew for 6 months there was a problem, with it and the TOS change, so why not inform people using it?? saying hey do not use or buy right now, as we are having a problem here??? communication goes a long way and being transparent...I don't totally blame Unity but they handled it poorly. not the first time for me , I been here 9 years .... So as much as I support Unity, they need to be careful with this... when dealing with people money, customers etc as well..This has turned into a PR mess for them.. anyways, I hope they work it out, and handle this better in the future, that is all I want to see. ( I don't want there head or anything.) but they did cause many issues, I had investors, I worked with, friends, ringing my phone all day.. due to that.. So they had many people worried. They just need to do better. That is all.

 

ROFL. As soon Unity publish this info the other company goes to the court and they would have been right. It's not Unity's job to publish these kind of things. But it's up to you. Good luck with the greener pastures.

Unity has no obligation to announce ToS changes. Especially in case it does not affect you. So I don't think the same. As much as I hate EULAs and ToSs I think you need to decide if you are okay with it or not. If not, you probably can find other software and other service which ToS is more compatible with your expectations. No need to play the drama-lama here.
They told us they will revisit it and will make it more clear if possible. What do you want to heat on the situation more?

 

There are people with lots of experience on both sides of this debate. Neither side should be dismissing the others' arguments with this sort of speculation.

 

***YAWN***

 

While you're absolutely right that Unity would have been stupid to publish the details of ongoing negotiations, recon0303 is also partly talking about announcing the ToS change. Apart from that they're basically saying Unity could have done better, which is fair.

 

Point being - this issue, how it should have been dealt with and how it should be dealt with from here by all parties, is very nuanced. It doesn't help anyone to get tribal about it.

 

clearly you never released a game or understand business, period.. Unity can blame anyone they want.. again no idea who fault it is.. if I knew something for 6 months my customers would know. period.. Maybe that is why I been in business for 20 + years. in more than one field...

PS: I already been using other pastures for decades. any good company , developer does... Unity isn't the only engine.. (Been working in the field since 1990's.. So not to worried about that. If Unity don't care about people "ACTUALLY" making games, so be it.. They can keep dealing with the asset store.. and stop selling pro licenses, makes no difference to me... So you can make your Silly comments all you want. I stand correct. about business.

 

If unity's issue is a 3rd party deploying unity instances for other customers (ie managed service), what I don't get is why Unity would say that spatialOS customers themselves aren't affected... they revoked spatialOS unity licenses but spatialOS can operate without them having unity licenses at all, as only the customers are the one building unity binaries. Aren't the spatialOS customers the ones breaking TOS, not the service itself?

 

Thanks, I didn't know that you can read minds over the wire. I'll shut up now.

 

well some people where, doing this. meaning some posters, I was posting about some comments earlier. So clearly they don't.. because as I said, if they RELEASED a game with that service, and it was effected where they lost money, they would be like"Wtf" and be contacting Unity ASAP, like we all did.. sadly we didn't see a reply for a awhile. So again, Unity said they knew for 6 months is the part that annoys me...( They should of said something) so people can plan, or be ready for it. nothing more.. anyways, they addressed the issue for us that are using it. SO that is good.

 

I don't need to . just by your action sir.... If you have a ACTUALLY company , dealt with investors, or hired people...( people would not act that way...but if someone is NOT effected, they brush it off..its the selfish nature of some people, I guess .. . good day.

PS: I was agreeing with the poster, that I quoted. others felt as he does. so I agree with him..

 

It is an easily verified fact that there are people on both sides of the debate with plenty of real world, commercial game dev experience. This is a bad look.

 

You got that correct. Thank you