Unity 4 New EULA Restrictions

What exactly is cloud gaming? I've heard the term before but not sure what classifies as cloud gaming.

 

The basic concept is you run the game on a server, then 'stream' the video to the client [and the input to the server]. The biggest commercial example right now is Onlive - though the idea isn't new [been around for decades in non-gaming uses] and many people are working on it.

 

I have been watching this thinking that Unity would respond and clarify the license in such a way to reassure us that they are committed to royalty free development licenses and that they have no intention requesting royalties for development on any platform. You just pay the license fee for Unity for whatever platforms and you are free to sell your project as you see fit. However, the lack of official response from Unity and AngryAnt's response to earlier comments has me worried. AngryAnt seems to say that he and Unity might think that they should have some sort of compensation for the execution of game developed on Unity by an end-user because it is built on the Unity engine. This is no different than Microsoft saying you should pay them for every program developed using Visual Studio because you are using their runtime. Maybe the Mono project should charge Unity for every license of Unity?

Just last week I was considering when I would purchase a Unity Pro license, and now I am looking at alternatives to Unity

 

That's the whole phrase that you are skewing to say what you believe is the intent of the EULA. The whole point of the phrase is if you replace/provide the entire functionality of the device then you break the EULA. At it's simplest, if you have an android phone and you are replacing the functionality with a Unity application so the Phone now runs Unity and not the Android iOS you are breaking the agreement. To turn your own argument on you, as it seems you love doing, since when has it ever been supported for us to use Unity to replace any of the platforms pre-4.0 ? Please provide a link that says we can basically use Unity as an Operating System and not a deployed application. IMO, All the EULA is doing is putting that in writing so that someone doesn't custom hack a linux OS with Unity3D running whatever application without UT knowing about it so they can support it. As I have said in my previous post, running an Android application, even if it replicates every bit of functionality within the Android platform is not breaking the EULA. If you use that application to REPLACE the Android OS without Talking to UT first then you are breaking the EULA. That's the key here and that falls out of the realm of almost all developers.

So the concern you bringing up in this thread is that Unity are asking people to contact them if they are deploying applications built on top of their proprietary engine into situations they do not necessarily support "out of the box", is wrong. Sounds like a stance most software companies would have.

Evidence of Gambling license restrictions ? Well in Australia (and I think the UK), Google for the gambling software technical standards. Most of the ones I have seen have requirements are data encryption, testing, randomness, reporting of transactions and correct odd calculations. And I am pretty sure all of them need to go through an approved software process as well to get on the approved gambling software list, which usually includes the test cases, reports and full source code.

How are they holding you hostage ? When I was signing up for the Unity Engine I was under the impression that Unity was an engine, mainly focused on 3D real time applications and games, that could be deployed to a number of platforms including Windows, Mac OSX, iOS, Android, Xbox and now Linux. The fact that UT have now said that Gambling applications that require the appropriate gambling licenses will need to be discussed due to what ever reason (The assumption being the hurdles they will need to jump through to meet legislation) is really not a big deal and not taking away functionality. The Fact that UT have said that deploying applications you build on the Engine to embedded devices that fall out of scope of the previously mentioned platforms will need to be discussed is, in fact, not taking away any functionality you previously have perceived to "have", but in fact enabling you to discuss with them the possibility to tailor Unity3D to these platforms.

At the end of the day, UT are a business and if the business has come to the decision that gambling games that are made with the engine are a potential financial or ethical risk that they are not willing to wear then they have every right to protect themselves. Doesn't mean they are happy about or that the users will be happy about it. Change always peeves someone off, look at WoW nerfing.

It's come up multiple times that this affects the potential for multi-player and distributed game models in this thread.

Your whole argument about streaming is based on a hypothetical argument that no one has come across that goes against they way unity engine is normally deployed, through a client that runs on an operating system or end user device.

Since when have UT said they won't allow you to deploy an application to these environments if you are licensed, wither inherently through the base agreement or through add-on licenses ?

Since when has Unity offered to deploy an application to device XYZ outside of windows/mac osx/android etc ? DISTRIBUTION is probably something you should look up as it is not distribution that is being discussed or even mentioned in the EULA

Pretty sure you need to go back and read the EULA and the support platforms with the various licensing options.

 

Nope, that's what you just did. I'm basing it on what the EULA actually says which have been confirmed by Davids statements.

i.e. no proof. Apparently unity have hired 20+ years of experience in this matter and still haven't been able to clarify this.

Because they're no longer continuing the conditions that most of us agreed to when we signed up - conditions that were the foundation of all the resources we've put into learning the engine. So now Unity can use that sunk cost against us in negotiations.

You have to be careful what 'this' is - there have been many different avenues of thought.

What do you mean 'no one has come across' - we have Unity Authored content being streamed today.

I don't understand why people think that offering a second license is somehow an excuse for removing it from the first license? We could do X, Y and Z. Now we can't. Sure, Unity may or may not allow us to regain these abilities... but that doesn't magically remove the fact they took it from us in the first place!

Err what? If I read this right, you're got at least two major misconceptions.

I have, please quote me the section you are referring to.

 

"Streaming and Cloud Gaming Restrictions. You may not directly or indirectly distribute interactive Licensee Content by means of streaming or broadcasting such Licensee Content that is primarily executed on a server and transmitted over the Internet or other network to end user devices without a separate license from Unity. This restriction does not prevent end users from remotely accessing Licensee Content from an end user device that is running on another end user device."

Unity: Please clarify Unity's definition of Streaming, Cloud Gaming, Broadcasting, and End User device mentioned in the EULA. This would make the intent of this section more clear.

I cannot read this without concluding that authoritative servers have the potential to be included in this clause.

[Edit: Food for Thought]
Something to Consider:

An alternative to the new restrictions noted in the EULA and the ensuing chaos could be:
* State clearly that an appropriate Unity OS License is required for any OS that will be receiving the Licensee Content regardless of delivery method unless it is being delivered by a locally executing Unity web Player. You might consider excluding VM's. This would be a fair way to get licensing revenue for Operating Systems benefiting from Licensee content and prevent the potential collapse of your previous model. The provider of streaming for instance could be encouraged to control which type of clients can receive the content and perhaps stimulate more Unity OS License purchases for developers who want to provide content to all Operating System. I believe this is the service you intended to sell and any reasonable developer should be willing to pay for if they intend to profit from it.

The beauty of the previous EULA was it's simplicity. I'm hopeful we can get back to focusing on development not restrictions.

 

View attachment $The Toolmaker.pdf - Please Review

 

Suddenly it all makes sense.

 

Your basing your argument of the statement if such Licensee Content provides the user interface or primary functionality of such electronic device or system. Now, as far as I am aware pre-4.0, Unity is a deployed application to say an Android device. Please show me a link that has a Unity application the replaces Android on an Android phone. Or, better yet, show me a device that runs Unity3D as it's only operating environment.

I.E. your willing to make blanket statements about how your world is ending and UT are effectively preventing you from distributing your content but your unwilling to do a simple google search about Gambling. Well, The UK Gambling Commission website gives a you bit of an idea about what is involved but the Queensland Office of Liquor and Gaming is quite good too. Gambling has huge amounts of legislation attached in most countries.

I didn't realize we are in a negotiations here now. And I didn't realize most of us signed up to make cloud streamed gambling games. Must of missed though when I downloaded the new version of Unity OS to my iPhone.

I always though the majority of people here were indie game developers making applications that can be deployed to a number of platforms.

Just like you have to be careful with a lot of the paranoid assumptions you are making about how UT are setting everyone up to empty their pockets and giving everyone the "bait and switch".

So there are a number of Unity applications streamed through Onlive ? Have examples ?

HOW ARE THEY TAKING AWAY ANYTHING ? Are they stopping you from making and deploying a Windows Application ? Are they stopping you from making and deploying a Mac OSX Application ? etc etc etc. Give me a case where Unity have sent someone a cease and desist letter. Apart from the one case with one developer that asked a client to talk to Unity about licensing their engine for use in an application the required a gambling license that the vendor was to tight to pay for (and the money that a lot of gambling companies make compared to the license fee is another issue all together) I have yet to see UT say we are stopping people doing development like they have in the past.

So Unity has offered to deploy their engine to say a motorola phone as the devices primary functionality provider out of the box ? Sounds cool.

See Post Above.

At the end of the day you are building a product on an engine provided by UT. You go on about how Adobe doesn't charge you for making stuff in Photoshop. Have you ever trawled through the Adobe license ? Have a look at this tidbit through a quick scan of it here since you love bringing it up: Use Obligations. Customer agrees that it will not use the Software other than as permitted by this agreement and that it will not use the Software in a manner inconsistent with its design or Documentation.. Now Photoshop wasn't designed as a word processor, it's technically possible to use the text function to write documents, but it wasn't designed for that. Did the world end when Adobe told people they couldn't write documents in Photoshop as that breaks the license agreement ? The EULA telling people they should discuss options with UT if they want to run Unity on an embedded device as it's core functionality is so harsh and affects everyone here. The explosion over this EULA is silly and it isn't even that restrictive.

IPopeyIE - If your users run the web application or a windows application or an Android application and connect to a multiplayer server, by the letter of the EULA they are not breaking the agreement as the End User and End User device is not streaming anything.

 

Unless the Dollhouse, The Furniture and The Theater all ran on top of the tools, the argument presented here is floored.

The argument at the moment is like buying a small car and then complaining that you can use it to haul a two ton carriage trailers because the manufacturer specifies in the manual the max towing capacity is 250KG.

 

Wow, and that alone doesn't set off alarm bells?

The EULA requires a license for certain usages, but the license is yet to be written? That means Unity can do whatever they like with the license. It might be their honest opinion that to obtain a streaming license, you get it for free, but have to wear a pink fez and eat chocolate waffles all day. Of course Unity aren't going to do that, of course its a stupid example, but just because its stupid doesn't mean it could not be done. Its an example of how potentially damaging a license could be, even if that is not Unity's intention.

But it doesn't matter what David says what matters is in the EULA. As much as I respect David, I don't think 'David said it was ok' would get much traction in court vs the EULA.

What does 'primary user interface' mean? You and sereval others have presented what you think it means, I have interpreted it differently (worse case scenario) and I think npsf3000 is putting the onus back onto Unity to define it, whilst assuming the worse. It is not a good situation to be left trying to interpret the meaning of a definition in a EULA as it can so easily be challenged in court. So why isn't this very important term even defined in the EULA like several others are?

This is one of the many problems with change to the EULA, lack of definitions, broad/blanket statements, removing options and choices we once had, and when did this change happen, before or after I pre-ordered?

 

My concern is that a loose definition of streaming could be applied to what an authoritative server is doing. It may not technically be considered an end user device as it could be headless and quite possibly be running on a server unattended.

The client may be providing only input requests to the server, while the server is providing the "primary execution", etc. The application state is then potentially being "Streamed" to the client to be rendered.

It would be nice if we could sum up "Streaming" in an explicit way.

Perhaps a sentence or two including following information
1) input via client (Exclusive purpose of client is to be input surrogate),
2) Server Processes input and renders application state to video feed.
3) video feed is sent back to client.

 

Except you are just interpreting it the same as myself and npsf3000 are trying to interpret it and i'm afraid none of us are right until Unity clarifies the situation. What worry's me about your interpretation is that you have to keep adding terms and more details to it to make it sound good. The obvious problem being if you have to do that, why wasn't it stated as such like that in the EULA in the first place? The answer I would suggest is therefore that your assumption is incorrect.

It doesn't matter what the Unity employees come here and state, their opinion, though valid and appreciated is not what will be questioned if you get into a legal battle, it will only come down to the EULA and then I guess down to whose interpretation can influence the judgement the most.

Personally if the embedded clause in the EULA stated the points you make, that Unity must be replacing the OS then that would be fine. None of my client work could ever been seen to infringe on that. However as it stands now, nearly all my client projects could be considered as the main user interface or represent the 'primary functionality' as the Unity games or interactive media is the only thing that is running on them 24/7 ( unless it crashes, but that is a very rare event, in fact I haven't had any reports for a long time).

Again, no-one has denied the restrictions and stringent requirements for gambling applications, however if Unity is purely used as a front end for displaying pretty graphics and you have a fully accredited back-end for dealing with the gambling aspects, why does it need a license from Unity? People keep shouting about needing the source code, but if that's the case why does it stop at Unity, why aren't they demanding to see the Windows code, or the OSX codebase, or the code to IE if its a web based service? The assumption here is that if you are not using Unity for the gambling aspects of the software, then its source code should not be required at all and if you are not utilising Unity's additional gambling software, expertise, support, why should you be forced to buy a license for it?

But thats only true from your favourable take on the EULA meaning. A view point that I actually shared until I re-read that part a few days ago and found the definitions so lacking, that I know have serious doubts and that in fact the terms are so broad as to mean anyone producing similar clients projects like myself will be affected. I have posted many times examples both actual and potential where this might affect me, so I wont bother to repeat them here.

I've posted a pretty realistic scenario that a client may approach me to create that would fall foul of the current streaming EULA. The whole point of it was to avoid the added cost and hassles of trying to support numerous devices, by simply streaming Unity content from a kisok/installation via a webpage, and allowing two-way communication. Whilst we are not yet at the streaming stage, we have working prototypes for the rest of it.

Because in U3.5 we were able to do all these things without requiring an additional license from Unity. In U4 we know require an additional license if the EULA requires it.

a License that is

• unknown.
• unavailable to read.
• of unknown cost.
• of unknown further restrictions.

So it could easily be that the license is of a prohibitive cost to the budget of the project or have further restrictions which make it impractical or impossible to adhere to. In both cases this kills you project dead.

Whilst Unity have expressed a desire to be able to 'discuss' the specific of a required license, perhaps working with the developer to achieve minimal pain in terms of restrictions or cost, that is not something I would like to rely on for the basis of producing a project.

Ideally you'd discuss this prior to commencement of a project, but I would see that as completely impractical for everyone invovled. Unity would end up fielding hundreds of requests a week, I'd have to make a request before I could bid on a project, the client would also have to agree too before the bid was excepted, its just becomes a massive nightmare.

Not everyone uses Unity to make little iOS indie games, not everyone uses Unity is a big corporation, one fit does not fit all.

 

Well, first, see my separate post directed to the staff where I say that while that's not an issue to me right now, it'd definitely get mention as a "high risk" item if we were to do anything moving in that direction.

Hence the "high risk" bit. But as I also said in that post, I'm confident that they're working on it. And since it's not an issue to me right now, I'm not sitting here worrying about it.

And that (and the whole rest of your post, in fact) why I've twice now bought up the relationship issue. If I do choose to go down the negotiation path with Unity about something then what's likely to yield better results - an open and positive discussion about achieving something that's mutually beneficial, or paranoid ranting on the Internet trying to convince other people of how bad things are?

Please don't misunderstand me - I think this discussion needs to be had. But I also feel that there's a lot of unwarranted negativity, which doesn't help anyone.

 

Sorry I missed that.

I guess this is different perspectives then, as apart from perhaps the original unfortunate name of this thread I don't see any paranoid ranting or unwarranted negativity. In fact the first two cases of the words 'evil' came in posts from Unity employees in their perception of posts, which again was strange as I don't remember off-hand anyone being aggressive or insinuating Unity as being evil.

I don't see how you can have a discussion about the problems with the changes to the EULA without bring up the points that you think are negative, thats the whole point. As far as I remember no-one here has been purely negative at Unity, just presenting their opinions as to the negative parts of the EULA. Obviously there is some to and fro in some of the posts between those who are taking different sides/opinions, but even then I don't remember seeing it devolve into anything nasty?

Speaking for myself, it is not my intent to belittle, embarrass or be aggressive towards Unity, their staff or anyone here and it is unfortunate if it has come across that way.

 

+1

At the end of the day, unless you 100% completely sure that I'm crackers the only difference is I'm making conservative arguments while you're [crispie] trying to give UT the benefit of doubt.

If I'm wrong, I'm pleasantly surprised by how reasonable UT is. If you're wrong, then not only might you lose hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, you actually advocated the EULA that made that possible.

And while I don't want to really debate your last post line by line again, I note a few key lines:

Yes, because the EULA clearly states: "An embedded device is an Android phone where the Android Operating System has been replaced by Unity"...

Actually, I'd argue that you [and possibly members of Unity's staff] are so paranoid that I'm [and others] are paranoid they've not actually read what we're saying.

Well, I'm glad that's clarified. The only form of streaming in existence is Onlive - therefor there's nothing to worry about.

TL;DR: Stop insinuating I'm paranoid or misreading the EULA while you are *clearly* doing so. There are over a dozen pages of discussion on these topics - how about you have a careful read-through *before* forumlating your next arguments? Because you're lacking vital information, and I don't want to have to repeat it all.

 

What I'm getting out of this is that Unity had a hell of a time supporting some really annoying devs and lawyers who were doing slot machines and obscure embedded hardware apps, and are trying to recoup the cost of that support by skimming off the top of their revenue instead of pushing that cost onto us. And by "us" I mean game developers. Sorry if that sounds a little snobbish. They are pushing higher costs onto companies that are only sort-of game developers but trying to keep costs low for game devs. To put it a different way, Unity is screwing them so they don't have to screw us. I think I'm mostly ok with that. If I were one of those guys who was planning on making a car dashboard with Unity then I'd probably be upset, but since I mostly care about games, and this doesn't affect game development much, I think it's fine. I think it's keeping with Unity's vision of being a low cost engine for game developers... it's just going to be a high cost engine for car dashboard developers.

The "streaming" clause does worry me a little, but I think the Unity team is being honest when they say it's there not to skim off our sales if we push to OnLive, but because their sales team is paranoid that "THE CLOUD" will somehow invalidate their business model. I've worked in the software industry for a while, and some sales teams are literally terrified of "The Cloud", like it's some looming armageddon that will cause people everywhere to stop buying individual software licenses, and lead to a world where they can only sell one copy of their software to a man with a giant computer, with thousands of people connecting to it and using it for free. And I have seen other licenses that have included strange "Cloud Insurance" clauses like this one.

 

If that was their attempt, then their EULA drastically misses the mark.. kinda like using a shotgun instead of a scalpel.

The sad thing is Unity *already* has this in place - the terms for the installing of the 'Unity Software' are clear. What the EULA restrictions apply to is *our software* not UT's.

 

Having read through this entire thread I have a few comments...

Firstly,
This thread is just a bunch of "hypothetical" posting. The more money they make from big names the better. More money that goes into making unity better for us and gives us new features.

They never said you can't do "gambling". They said you need to TALK to them first. And it's very doubtful you will be doing any sort of real gambling application with Unity and not have the money to create it. Stop complaining.

Streaming, this is a little more of a valid point. Although it isn't all exactly "oh look they're doing something good for the best of the world" it's a BUSINESS. You know? The ones that make money? Yeah. It may be irritating that if you want to put your game on one of these services and they haven't gone through Unity and thus you cannot. But, once again, would they be worth it in the first place? Is there a reason you can't make a special arrangement with Unity for your special circumstance? No-one said you can't do that. No one said it will cost you "six figures" officially. It could cost you nothing. I really doubt they will ask you for six figures to put your game on OnLive for JUST your game to be allowed on their servers.
(I am aware that OnLive is the one that needs to contact Unity and allow for Unity games. I'm talking about special cases)

This kiosk stuff, people talk about how there's "untapped" businesses in this etc. npsf3000 goes on and on about local markets. Well, why don't you do it then? Why don't you make something to do embedded software? Oh, right, if you manage to get 50+ instances of it they will ask you to talk to them. Ergh! Going into negotiations! Maybe they won't even want something? You're probably not the big name they wanted.

Oh right, business is all about negotiations. What you can and cannot do. If I could buy 5000 boxes of bottled water for $12,500 but they wanted $15,000. It costs them $1,000 to make. It's still profitable for them to sell them to you and they know you can't afford them at 15,000. They'll probably go down to 12,500.


My point is this:
How about you show me a real case right now where you are ACTUALLY effected by this..but not just that. You also talked to Unity and they couldn't do ANYTHING for you to make this possible. Maybe your idea wasn't so profitable or doable in the beginning.

Maybe they should have put a threshold, but they didn't. But I'm really sick of all these hypothetical cases and what you guys "could" do but now can't. Show me a case where you were making a gambling application had permits etc. Then Unity asked for $999,999 dollars and you couldn't afford it.

Like they said, it's a "Call us" not a "GIVE US MONEY OR YOU CAN'T GET THIS LICENSE". Sigh.


P.S: That hypothetical comment of mine also implies to you thinking they will suddenly start asking for money with FPS games too. They won't. They never will unless something very drastic changes in the game development community. It won't happen. Their motives for this are very clear and it's not to hurt anyone that doesn't have a HUGE budget.

First post in a while and sadly it had to be this thread that irritated me enough to want to post in it.

 

Hehehe.

Firstly, read this thread, most of what you've stated has been covered.

Secondly, I am doing what I'm saying... so where do you get the idea that I'm not?

Thirdly, why should I 'negotiate' for something that I've already licensed? We had an agreement with UT, and now UT have decided to fundamentally alter that agreement without warning or notice... and yet we're meant to negotiate in good faith?

Feel free to vent your irritation, I just hope rashness doesn't end up costing you down the track.

 

Wether or not I'm giving UT the benefit of the doubt, you constantly probing me for "facts" and are yet to give one apart from the example of a single developer being quoted six figures through a perspective client.

If I had hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars on the line, my lawyers would be getting written contracts or I would be employing people to write an engine in house.

Again, an EXAMPLE situation. Show me any situation with an embedded device running Unity as it's primary functionality

Yet it seems you are quite willing to say TL;DR on anything you don't agree with ? I have, unfortunately, read all the posts in this thread and the previous over the last few days.

Again, an EXAMPLE. Please provide any example that meets the streaming requirement of breaking the EULA

I have read the posts, unfortunately it seems like because I disagree I don't get the same level of recognition for some reason.

At the end of the day it's UT's product, and even though past experience since they began has proved they are not here to fleece money, the EULA is clearly not written to the complex legal speak lawyers require. If you have millions of dollars riding on Unity you would be talking to them about licensing anyway to protect your investment, like I'm sure that many of the bigger clients do. The area's we are talking about here generally fall out of the main focus of the Unity engine. We are quibbling about very small instances of possibly having a problem with very small sectors of a product that while the wording is phrased in a general way, if it goes to court it doesn't mean those generalizations are enforceable either.

Again, you ask everyone for facts and examples, show us facts and examples because I have still yet to see any.

 

I like the fact you say it has fundamentally changed when the changes to the EULA probably affect 1 in 10,000 if that.

 

Again, you assume that's possible. If you've misread the EULA you may not have time to make the corrections... but nevermind.

I have, and you know this after all you've "...read all the posts in this thread and the previous over the last few days...".

So please, read up or ask nicely.

Beyond asking people who claim 'UT must be involved in ALL gambling apps' to prove that claim, what facts and examples have I asked of 'everyone'?

 

So, are you then? You would probably be in negotiations with them right now and have an idea of how much this would be costing you correct?

They have the right to change it without notice or warning. What do you mean already licensed? They didn't do anything that wasn't in their power to do. Am I to assume to you purchased Unity 4 Pro before the new EULA and you had not read the EULA or it was not the new altered version?

Either way, I'm sure you had agreed to the term that said they are allowed to alter it. That was in your "Agreement" with UT. Just like WoW can change their terms conditions at any time etc. You agreed to let them do this. Don't forget that.

Let's not call me ignorant, okay? I doubt anyone here really believes that Unity will ever require licenses for "genres" of games. They're targeting a VERY specific type of people with this move. And it's the RIGHT move for them.

This EULA might effect me sometime in the future(Especially that embedded part). But I will open negotiations just like they have requested. If I find these terms to become unprofitable or unsuitable for me and there is other software out there that I could use alternatively, I will move to that. That is how business works.

Stop with your idealistic view on business and don't hold Unity up to standards that I doubt many businesses in the world hold up to.

 

Those standards do exist, maybe not to the extent he mentions, but they are actually more and more present between third party / tools provider and businesses of all size, we're more and more in an era where business discussions are openly discussed, you can even see it in this thread with unity not closing the thread but instead openly discussing it and trying to see where the issue is.

On one hand we (me too, while i'm not concerned directly at all) are fairly annoyed that the EULA changed that way and Unity isn't seeing the big deal, and i'm fairly sure those discussions are fruitfull for both side, althought they could be a bit less heated.

 

Well I hopefully will have an idea when the UT staff get back to me.

Please tell me where it says "UT can change this agreement at any time, and you must be ecstatic and cannot under any circumstance ask us to explain out changes". Again, I've covered this - I'm not claiming UT cannot make these changes, I'm saying we shouldn't accept them.

Then don't shout to high heaven for examples when there are several examples given that we're waiting for UT to answer.

Exactly what is idealistic about my views?

 

Actually no they can not alter the EULA of the version of Unity you use after you got it.
Well they can alter it but it has no legal impact on you.

But they can introduce a new EULA with a future version naturally.
There is one requirement though and that is that under european law (which governs UTs legal operation) they must make the differences clear and easy to grasp, they can't hide it in a xx page long paragraph.
That goes against 'what you expect it to be' or 'whats common', a common sense clause covering ToS and EULAs which would protect you from its consequences as they have to inform you about such deep, breaking and non standard changes in the EULA in an additional form without the requirement to read through every single line.

But you will need to consult a lawyer on this specific EU law topic to be 100% sure to what degree which part of it applies to you and your situation.

The gambling part surely impacts no one as they need to negotiate it with UT anyway, the 'audit' legislation requires you to use the source license per definition as you need to know the code in there.
For the OnLive part the situation is different though there it always will be. Assume you push it through a publisher who puts it there just as an example where the clause will fail and thats only one of many cases where the clause will be extremely troublesome for UT to even tackle, not even considering 'enforcing' it.

 

What's idealistic is you're asking for a company to not make changes to their EULA without their customers accepting it. Customers will most of the time complain if it costs them money or will limit them more so than it did before.

Customers want more and business wants more. But both can't have more when it's the same thing. I understand you're wanting them to give you no restrictions on your compiled product and that is acceptable. But I'm coming from the view of Unity and that is that they are a business and they don't have to give you everything you want. And it's perfectly reasonable for them to request you TALK to them. Although it'll probably require money and sorts, it doesn't matter.

Fight as hard as you can for what you want and if it doesn't work out move on. Go to another company if it's unprofitable for you to stay here.

You can't please everyone. But as I like to think, your most valuable customers are the ones that are complaining.

 

As opposed to the reading of my posts ? If you had even bothered to read them which you clearly have not and stated that with the TL;DR comment you would have a clue.

Done with this considering you don't seem to be even bothering anymore, just respewing old posts at this point.

 

Knew I should of mentioned the bit about how software sometimes has updates to EULA with a new version. Not the current one. I already know that one. I just didn't really mention it in my post.

I didn't read Unity 4s EULA since I have no interests in Unity 4 at this time. But was the EULA in there before or was it recently updated? It seems like a lot of complaining for something thats been around for a month or two now.

 

How is that idealistic? It seems to me to be pretty basic business... what's the problem?

 

I've read your posts, and I've answered your concerns. If you want to understand my answers more clearly, answer this question:

http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/16...Restrictions?p=1108251&viewfull=1#post1108251

If you can answer that one, it'll be more beneficial than huge line by line arguments.

 

This is one thing I really don't understand from the 'supporters' of the EULA change. Whilst I can understand it is 'nice' of Unity to offer negotiations for licenses for those who might not be able to afford them and know that Unity are generally very good towards their community, would you really being singing their praises if they did this with all their current licenses?

Want a Unity Pro license for Win/Mac/Linux distribution, talk to us, no we wont tall you how much it will cost on the website, or give you any idea of the requirements and restrictions of the license, until you've bought it.

Want an iOS license, talk to us, no we wont tell you how much it is, but hey if you can afford to make a game for an Apple device, you wont mind paying our license price. Oh did we mentioned that the license is per game?

This would obviously be a really bad way to run a business, indeed many of the old 3D engines have fallen to the way side precisely because they did business this way. It's one of the reasons Unity is so great, they have clear delineations between licenses and are upfront about the costs.

But this EULA changes that. Not only is it very broad but also badly worded and reduces the options and choices we once had, by requiring a license, for which we have no idea of the cost, restrictions or requirements.

Again the supporter chant 'talk to them', but I wonder if they have actually thought this through? It might make sense if you are a game developer, working on your own projects, but it makes absolutely no sense for someone like myself who creates projects for clients.

It would mean that whenever I get a prospective client or bid on a client project that I think might infringe on one these new EULA clauses I will have to go to Unity, explain in detail the project, despite it frequently changing between brief and the contract being signed and just as frequently after the contract has been signed. Hoping Unity can get back to me in time before submissions for the bids runs out. Add the additional license cost to the budget cost (hoping no competitors are using competing technology that does not have this additional surcharge). Go to round two of the bid where the brief changes, go back to Unity with any changes that might affect the licence, back to the client with changes. Win the bid and half way through find the client wants to make changes that affect the license again (e.g. we quoted for 55 embedded kiosk, but now its 100), get a new license agreement with Unity (I dread to think what would happen at this stage if Unity refused or made it infeasible), go back to the client with an updated budget. Client is surprised to have an additional surcharge on the bill for a license from a company they are not even dealing with. The list goes on.

You may claim I'm being pessimistic, or paranoid, but can you honestly say this situation could not arise? After getting a license from Unity they wouldn't want to re-negotiate if the project changed?

What we had in the old EULA was few restrictions with how I could deliver my content, now there are several more, all requiring license which one would assume the whole point of which is to add a surcharge to the cost, otherwise why bother changing the EULA in the first place? That's not nice.

What's worse is that its clear just within this thread that there are several interpretation of the EULA, which is never a good sign. The supporters may be right, my client work might never infringe of these EULA restrictions, but forgive me if I don't put much faith in hear-say from a forum as being good legal advice.

 

I could see where you're coming from... but my concerns are:

1) It's in the context of Unity trying to raise additional revenue, in his post he mentions:

In the past they would come to us since they would invariably use either some obscure embedded systems or Linux, and since Unity didn't support these, we could work charge them for some fraction of what Unity was worth to them – which often was quite substantial and again helps our strong team doing fantastic work.

...but [linux support] had the adverse effect that we were going to lose out on these things. So we added a clause to the EULA at the same time...

Now this is from the embedded section - but he talks about the 'cost' of licensing Linux for 'free', then mentions content running on a Linux Server in his reasoning for restricting streaming.

2) It's not UT's role to care *how* we use our content.

As I tried to explain to some other posters, where has Unity ever licensed a platform? Where has it said if you buy this you can use iOS, if you don't you can't? Because my reading indicates that *all* Unity has licensed is are tools that may assist with developing content targeted for a platform.

It's quite a drastic shift to go from "Here's a hammer, and if you want to dig a hole have you considered our shovel?" to "Here's a hammer, but don't use it to make toy's."

 

This is one of the more mature and quality posts that stand out from this thread.

You have all very good points. Which are valid and should be addressed by Unity.

My view is this:
Unity should alter the current EULA changes to have a revenue threshold. But they shouldn't remove it.

 

Initially I thought I understood why UT would be concerned about this, until I realised that streaming a game makes no difference! Unity never charge developers per number of game installs, they charge for the ability to author the content. What difference does it make to them if I author once in Unity and sell 50,000 download copies on iOS vs authoring once, sticking it on a server and letting 50,000 people play it?

I guess it must then be the concern over losing additional add-on sales, why buy iOS add-on if you just get Unity Pro and release a streaming version?

Ok I can kind of see that, but what isn't so nice is that Unity are now charging a license for how we deploy the content as opposed to requiring purchasing add-on licenses that allow us to deploy to a specific device. On the face of it charging us more but offering nothing in return, whilst at the same time affecting developers like myself who may have a cool little project for a museum which would never have the budget nor time to support developing the service to run on numerous devices, but could have found a solution with streaming content via a webpage.

I wont deny its a tricky situation, but it seems like lose-lose for everyone at the moment as it such an unusual step, as personally i'm used to buying licenses that 'add' abilities or features, not simply to be allowed to do something I was already able to do.

 

Why keep the restrictions at all? Even with a revenue threshold why does a arcade game developer... say making $500k/year have to go and talk to Unity... while a MMO or app developer can go and make $50Mn/year without talking to 'em?

I'm all for Unity trying to make money, but beyond my own discomfort I can't see how such odd restrictions help anybody.

 

And from a commercial perspective one of the strong points that sold unity to me over udk was the no royalties scheme. While it's likely not royalty based this new EULA signifiantly diverges from the previous Mindset of "pay once, per dev, no strings attached"

 

We are working on a solution and an explanation that will hopefully turn all of this into a win-win. But what isn't win is all this arguing in circles, we know and understand your concerns so please be patient for an official solution and refrain from bickering.

If there are any newcomers to the thread, I urge you to read through it first.

npsf3000, I suspect you will get your meaningful answer at the same time as the rest of the community

 

+1

There's been a lot discussed in both threads, and a lot of different 'hypotheticals' exchanged. Some things I said at the start were stupid and I've changed my POV, and some things now said I would have called stupid at the start.

Once Unity release their solution [hopefully with community consultation], there's a fair chance we'll create a new thread with something of a summary.

So feel free to join in, but please don't jump in

Not a problem, only reason I bring it up is because there have been suggestions that unless I'm actively in discussions I'm some kind of trouble-maker.

 

Does this mean that one is forbidden to record the output of a game session and publish that to youtube?

 

None of the restrictions in place would prevent that from occurring, nor would any of the hypotheticals I've explored.

 

Reverse engineering would be a problem, but getting your content to run on platforms it's not designed for isn't reverse engineering. And while this is meant to be a theoretical point, I can think of three separate occasions where something along these lines has occurred - and UT hasn't had a problem with it to-date.

I think I've my views on this clear

My thoughts are... so what? Streaming may become a huge and popular within a year or two [but don't hold your breath] - but I'd consider it near impossible for it to be replacing platforms in that time. To actually replace, say iOS, you'd need vastly superior world-wide broadband infrastructure than exists today - it's much more likely to work in conjunction. In short, your revenues are secure for the short-mid term.

Then factor in that trying to 'control' that platform is likely to backfire - you'll have already lost one of you main advantages in the field [platform compatibility], and arbitrary license that breaks your 'royalty free' model is likely to worsen your position against some very strong competitors [Cry-engine 3/4 with mono streamed to your Mobile? Yes please!]

Lastly, this problem isn't unique to streaming! Streaming is just a new way of using an existing license that could in theory 'hurt' some of your existing platform sales. I could say the exact same about Android - particularly Kindle Ouya. They both use existing licenses in a new way that in theory could 'wipe out' iOS and Consoles respectively. That's a risk of investing in new platforms - they won't be here forever - and something you already deal with.

So yes, I can understand why someone thought this was a good idea, but if you actually start thinking about the various situations I suspect you'll find that you've not actually given yourself much benefit, but have potentially hurt one of your key selling points - the royalty free license.

 

If Unity has, as a side effect of their other work, also built a platform which may seriously undermine several of their revenue channels (or endanger future funding) then UT should certainly protect themselves.

I hope we can all put ourselves in their position for a moment on this.

If not, then I hope we can at least consider how important UT's financial health is for us all. I also imagine no one bought Unity4 solely or even primarily to build for Streaming anyway so from a purely practical stand point I'd ask: how much is it actually costing us for Unity to protect itself this way? If we think Streaming is hype then we were never going to get anything from deploying to it anyway.

Likewise I'm sure UT realizes that depriving us of that distribution channel will do harm for us and their presence in that market. (And the mere existence of the clause will immediately stop many developers as the majority will just see that clause and give up without imagining they could call UT for special permission or imagine it's too expensive before lifting the phone)

My real concern is that the wording of Streaming clause seems overly broad and could extend to a wide range of deployments.

"An executable that simulates the entire game world and sits on a remote server that the end user does not own and broadcasts that world to client apps."
That is a description of an ordinary remote hosted minecraft server in words that seem to violate the Streaming clause of the EULA.

I'm confident this is not Unity's intent and it would be wonderful to have that clearly stated: what does "broadcast" mean, what is "primarily executed", why include the phrase "...this restriction does not prevent ...accessing Licensee Content from ... another end user device" is this just to allow playing over VNC or are there broader implications?

 

Well, if MacinCloud offer Unity Pro as a tool and application for their cloud service, then I don't need to buy a Mac and Unity Pro + iOS Pro in order to develop desktop and iOS app

http://www.macincloud.com/

You can see, Shiva3D is on the tool list

http://www.macincloud.com/features/tools/tools

 

But that would (rightfully) be off limit unless licenced explicitely by unity as unity is and has always been "per user" and not "per machine", so unless they're paying 1500 per distinct connected user or licenced something else (like cheap bulk floating licences) this isn't happening.

IIRC they allow you to have it installed (could be wrong there, but that's what i remember when i was looking at alternatives to going mac to publish ios)

 

Still catching up with this thread, but every time I hear anyone go this granular about software licensing, I regret getting tied with the middleware and think I may be better off reinventing the wheel.

Mind you: not doing it yet, lack of time/budget, but it makes me understand why big studios tend to be VERY picky about licensing engines and tend to just go for internally developed ones. They don't have to wory about small print about "user license" of the engine.

I should not have assumed, I know, but when I jumped into Unity I was thinking I was getting development tools, not licensing runtime environments with conditional client licenses. I actually got into Unity because I felt it had less encumberance by being an up-front fee instead of a royalty-based scheme like UDK or Cry.

Not really ranting, just ... well ranting but to the air I still understand the world of software deployment is not that simple (unless you do it all yourself.)

Legally, you are only legally bound by the EULA that you signed/clicked agree to. If they change it but don't force you to click "agree" on a revised version, you don't have to worry about any changes. Hope you kept a saved copy of the EULA, though

Greed is not a bad thing, in fact, everyone is greedy. If you ever wanted more money/posessions than needed for basic survival and comfort, you are greedy. *Hint: computers and video game are not required for either *

It's a question of balance, though. How far you nickel-and-dime people before they feel resentful. For me it’s not that, but simply the legal encumbrance of it all.

 

It is part of Web Ranting 101, page one of the study module clearly states "All points and opinion must be stressed with extreme aggressive tone and the assumption anyone against said opinion or point is evil and likely also hates free speech."

I think i twould be a LOT clearer if the Streaming clause of the EULA simply stated:

"Any Server Side Rendering, Remote Rendering or Cloud Rendering use [yada yada] will require special license [yada yada]." ​

since it is what, sounds to me, is the real target of the clause. That bit of "primary on the server" is too vague and can easily be confused as any game who does most of the logic in the server, even if it still renders exclusively in the client.