Unity to charge significantly more and possibly royalties for games with "gambling"?

Unity should step away from it, this is a very dangerous line to cross and gambling laws are different on every country. If i where Unity, i'll clearly state in the EULA: "What ever you do with Unity is your problem." sort of

 

Already happened, look up UltimateBet. The other sites have regular audits of their software and random number generators. No game is 100% cheat-free (the players may collude) but online poker is as safe as gambling in a casino.

 

Sure you could program a gambling game that cheats in your favor (regardless if its deckbased or not) but you wouldn't reviece a gambling license, your games would not be on the big casinosites, and you would eventually get sued and jailed. Online gambling is HEAVILY regulated (atleast the european market) Gambling is not a scam although you could scam people in gambling. Just like watch sellers aren't crooks although you can sell fake watches to people.

 

I'm just explaining the American reasons for banning it .

I detest gambling in general , and if I was to gamble I need to SEE THE ACTUAL CARDS

 

Gambling is of course some sort of indirect scam because most of those people have little to none idea about their chances of winning. That's the legal part, the illegal part is when you reduces gamblers chances of winning by cheating, oh well at the bare basics it's already close to scam. To me, anything related to gambling (involving money) i call it "voluntary taxes" and i will never of course pay voluntary taxes!
There's some countries constitutions where even taxes isn't something that gets close to "obligatory" but I'll keep the thread on track.

 

Well you make that assumption based on that YOU don't know the odds since you don't play casinogames. Most people who play on online casinos on a regular bases are well aware of the odds. If you have an interest, hobby etc you learn about it ofcourse, you talk about the RTP and volatility of a slotmachine on forums with other players perhaps. I can agree that many of the S***faced guys who stumble in to a casino on a las vegas party trip have little knowledge of the odds sure Anyway interviews and surveys on online casino players shows that they are well aware that the odds or against them but they play for entertainment. They regard it as a pretty cheap form of entertainment on a saturday night, instead of going to the movies, getting hammered or what not people spend their money on.

Its easy to call people stupid or ignorant who partake in things that you don't get enjoyment out of yourself and point at the bad effects of it . Smoking, drinking, playing video games, eating pizza, going to church, gambling, having casual sex partners, skydiving, riding motorcycles and on and on

 

I never made such assumption, can you please stop over exaggerating?

 

If you say that people playing gambling games gets scammed you are saying they don't understand what they are doing allowing them do get scammed right?

 

I'm going to re-quote myself:

Your efforts to make my comment understood in a different way are worthless, just leave it there ok?

 

I don't see how that is different from what I said? You are saying that most people don't understand their chances of winning. Wouldn't that be mean that they are either not smart enough to understand the odds (stupid) or not having bothered to understand the odds (ignorant). How else can it be interpreted?Or do you mean that the chances of winning are so complicated to understand you couldn't ask it of a person of normal intelligence? I might have exaggerated you comment though, if so I apologize. its not uncommon to hear people refer to gamblers as stupid (how can they not understand that most people will loose in the long run) and I wanted to say that it is a misconception. Gamblers know that the odds are against them and most are aware of roughly their chances of winning.

 

Americans haven't banned gambling - it's not a federal law, and state laws vary, as well as tribal laws.

But the restriction on games of chance in the EULA is rather discouraging, and too broad. No one thinks that Unity is courting the dark side. But what's to say what will happen after a couple of quarters in the red? These restrictions on content creation need to go away.

 

Could this mean that in the future anyone using Unity's Random command will have to pay big time?

 

Cummon. Don't be silly. Or paranoid. What gambling is and what type of games are considered gambling are well defined and highly regulated. This clause in the EULA, though it could and should be clarified, is clearly aimed at a very specific and narrow market. If you are not trying to make a bingo, slot machine or roulette wheel where you sell chances to win real currently with real currency - you don't have to be worried. You are not making a gambling application. If you don't know or understand what this clause is about you shouldn't worry about a thing. At least not from Unity. If you make a gambling app "by accident" you're not going to have to worry about Unity. If you even *get* distribution (which the app store or steam or who ever won't give you), you will have to worry about city, county, state, federal and international law first. If you're making a gambling app, you'll know it. Just like the client in the OPs article. They knew the laws. They knew the EULA. They knew what they were doing. As a matter of fact, if you don't like Unity flirting with the dark side of gambling, you should be happy with this change in the EULA, as fewer people making gambling apps will use it - as seen in the article. They won't want to pay the fees!

Cummin, folks. Have a level head.

 

Sun Dog,
Yes, but has Unity stepped over a line, like that Corporate Giant we interact with so often.... Google, who have the informal slogan "Don't be evil". By introducing a Moral aspect to the EULA they are changing things in an emotive way. Where does it stop and why should it stop?

 

What makes you think this is a decision based on morals? Its based on money and legislation, nothing more. While some people think gambling is a grand taboo, that's a minority point of view.

 

khanstruct,
Gambling and the effects of Gambling 'is' a huge moral issue. It would be interesting to hear from Unity 'why' they have made this change to the EULA. Do they have Social concerns or do they want to cash in on people who are making lots of money from applications made with their Game Engine. Either way, there is a restriction involved which could lead to others. It's useful to know where Companies are coming from.

 

Not for everyone. Some people think video games themselves are a HUGE moral issue. Some people think saltine crackers are a HUGE moral issue (probably not as many though...). Most people, however, really don't care.

If you're morally torn up about gambling, don't make a gambling game. Simple. And these games have always been a minority, and have always been treated differently. To think that this is the beginning of an iron-fisted, Unity gestapo is just silly.

 

khanstruct,

:-|
Personally I think life 'is' a gamble and we are constantly throwing the dice. 'Glass bead game' type scenario, in fact that would make an exciting game. I'm just anti Authoritarian. I think this is natural.

Edit:

Wake up man, It only takes one angry new employee with policy changing power to turn a benevolent organisation into a malevolent one and if companies become short of cash they are capable of pretty much anything.

 

...anyway... I don't think Unity is short on money. Nor do I think this is some corrupt act of desperation.

 

Time for UT to get involved in this thread I think. Its actually quite a huge change of business philisophy for Unity and it be nice to hear the reasoning behind it cause it pushes towards the royalty idea "If a game does well or has the potential of doing well we want more money aswell" which Unity always touted its horn for not doing.

The same way Unity always said, " we don't care what you are doing with Unity" but has now changed into a direction where they want more control of what content you create with their software

 

Exactly

I really want to know what changed on Unity's side to introduce that EULA change. I'm a bit bugged about it i have to say...
Does anyone know WHEN this entry appeared first in the 4.0 EULA ? I mean i was a VERY EARLY adopter of Unity 4 +mobile extensions (all Pro ) and i really don't like to have spent a hefty chunk of money and than having restrictions applied on what Games i can create and sell to potential customers...
I really doubt that the passage was already available to me/public when i bought into my License....

So Unity : it's your term, speak up !

 

^^

 

We apologize for our silence on the matter up to this point and will be posting a response to these concerns soon.

 

What I find interesting, and has nothing to do with gambling, is that a company that makes a DCC tool is dictating that depending on the type of content you produce, you will be charged different rates for it. Whilst Unity is a game engine, it is also a content creation tool and a compiler and I would equate this with Microsoft saying "well, if you use our operating system to make this kind of content, and our compiler to make this kind of application, we are going to charge you a different price." I am sure Unity has considered this very carefully from a legal standpoint, but there are precedents, both in case and common law that indicate they may have a tough time enforcing their EULA.**

Because of this questionable change in the EULA I won't be looking to upgrade to 4.0 any time soon. Not because it directly affects me right now, but "if this, then that." I want to know and understand the long-term ramifications of this particular change.

Any time a DCC tool developer introduces a new "clause" that restricts or alters the price on doing business because they have identified a new opportunity to make some money for themselves it becomes an opportunity for me and the companies I consult for to evaluate other options that do not include the DCC tool developer in our future plans.

When a software tool has restrictions on what types of installation it can be used under, i.e. "you can use this to make games for Windows for desktop PCs with this type of licensing but if you use it to make games for Windows for desktop PCs, and the desktop PC happens to sit inside of a cabinet, it's a different kind of licensing" the engineers and the business guys generally start looking very hard at other options very quickly. Yeah, been there, done that, and it always comes as a shock to the tool developer to find out that they licensed themselves out of the equation.

Unity has put themselves in an interesting position with this and it will be interesting to see what the backlash from the developer community will be.

Their silence isn't helping when I get off of an emergency phone call with the CEO of a Bay Area start-up worried that their free to play social casino game for iOS they are developing may suddenly have a large licensing price attached to it. "Should we switch our development team to that new Zynga platform now or wait until the New Year? I don't think we can risk developing a second title on Unity if they are going to do this." Big oops!


**Microsoft does actually charge different licensing prices for particular uses of their operating system. "Oh you want to "install" a thousand of our operating systems on remote access terminals throughout your organization? We can make that happen, and it'll only cost 20% of what it would be if you bought each of the licenses separately." There is a reason that embedded Windows has done so poorly in the market place and it has everything to do with poorly thought out pricing schemes and EULAs based on installation type. "ATM? Oh that's price A with the following restrictions. ATM that accepts credit cards? That's price B with the following restrictions. Interactive installation at a museum? Price C. Interactive installation at a museum with external hardware attaced? That's price D. Casino cabinet? That's price E with the following restrictions. Casino cabinet in a networked environment? That's price F. Off-track betting casino cabinet in a networked environment with remote analytics? I don't know, I'd have to ask. Can I get back to you in a couple of weeks?" which leads to "Yeah, we decided to go with Linux because it was less of a headache."

We shall see what Unity comes back with. It may be nothing at all to concern ourselves with. Or it could be an opportunity to consider other tools in the near future.

 

+1

 

Again, we apologise for not updating, as Antenna Tree says, we will be posting a response on this matter soon.

 

What about unity giving a discount for educational use? Are you okay with that?

 

The moral issue I have with gambling is that the company is making its money from the unhappiness of its players.
A normal product charges you for use and in general, the happier you make your clients, the more money you stand to make.
With gambling, you only make your money when the player loses. A player that wins, which is his intention, is a loss to the company.
So the company actually goes out of their way to make defeat the player, which is where they make their money.

 

But you're also assuming people don't enjoy playing the game; that they only enjoy winning. If that were the case, I would never play Call of Duty again... ever.

While I personally don't gamble (aside from the occasional "poker night" with friends), I know a lot of people that love going to the casino. They go there expecting that it will cost them money. They go to play games, have a few drinks and enjoy themselves.

 

I was commenting on the moral side – there are many people that pay for the entertainment of it and don’t mind losing. Some don’t even mind losing their entire month’s rent.
A lot of immoral things are a lot of fun and highly enjoyed.

I also go throw a few bucks down the casino’s tubes occasionally in the name of fun, with the slightest hope that I’ll strike a jackpot.
I just can’t help but marvel at looking at all the faces glued to the screens and not one smile in sight.

Did you know – the best selling item at casino pharmacies are adult diapers. Just sad.

 

Sounds like the change to the EULA was not morally motivated , Unity just wants to cash in on the big bucks that the gambling industry has access to. I guess that does now pose a Moral Issue.

 

This is so low. If Unity wants to earn money in the gambling industry then maybe they should start create their own games instead of piggy backing on other companies. If they provide tools and support for gambling companies and charge extra for that then thats fine but atleast let the companies decide themselves if they think its worth the extra cost or if they rather just use the standard unity license.

 

That just seems like their covering their bases , what if a company decides to deploy their real money gambling game in the states and Unity ends up in court !

 

We have clarified our EULA to specify who is affected. Quoting from David's post;

As an example, slot machines have to run for days at a time without problems which means the hardware they run are quite specialised, which in turn means we need to be equally specialised in the type of support and services we provide.

The gambling industry is highly regulated, requiring lengthy applications and evaluations for a license, it is a very different beast to the video game industry and we adapt to provide the best service we can to different sectors.

 

Aurore:
That would mean only the player side would need a "gambling" license ?
What if i get subcontracted by a "gambling" company to develop a 3d pokergame for them which they plan to run on their PC based gambling machines ?
Or if i would develop such a game, aproach them and they license the game and run it on such a device ?

So i would be allowed to develop on my standard Pro Licenses and they would have to get special gambling licensing themselves ?

It's still not clear to me who exactly is targeted and why running the OUTPUT of Unity on a specific system should tangent the license for the development environment ( which is Unity of course ). In addition to the "technically bound" License ( like Android, iOS, Desktop OSX, Win, Flash etc..). This should be specifically mentioned wether this changed EULA applies to the game runtime or the the Unity license or both... I'm still confused

 

If you are playing against the house in a game like blackjack, then yes, the house needs you to lose. They have a small percentage edge in each game and that is where they make their money over the long term.

If you are playing poker, the house doesn't care if you win or lose because they get a cut of each pot (rake) or charge a percentage of the buy-in for a tournament. They are just charging a fee to run the game (they need to pay for venue, dealers, staff, etc). The more games they have running, the more money they make.

 

Does this mean that along as Unity isn't handling any gamecalculations, money transfers etc but is purely used a visual representation of the game you don't need a gambling license?

 

This is targeted at companies who's purpose is to produce software for the use of gambling with real currency, i.e. digital slot machines in Casino's. This company would need to go through a long and expensive process to obtain a license from their respective government or state to be able to do this. The software the company uses and the software produced from it has to also adhere to certain standards and are evaluated for things such as fairness. Gambling machines are not your standard Windows PC's and as such we must adapt to consider this as well as the specialised support the company might need during development.

 

So are you going to have an RNG in the Unity software that will actually be good enough for obtaining a gambling license? Again if you use Unity purely for visualisation and already have a gambling license and uses an RNG that is approved and following regulations do you need the gambling Unity license or can you use regular Unity? Many gaming companies uses Flash today for showing the visual stuff but the actual RNG, game calculations etc isn't done in Flash but on another platform.

 

Hey all – sorry about the confusion here.

We messed up by not making the EULA changes clear enough – we've fixing that right now and as my colleagues pointed out, I wrote a blog post about this last night.

http://blogs.unity3d.com/2012/12/04/unity-and-gambling/

The ultra-short version is: we are only talking about real-money gambling of the sort that's heavily regulated, not virtual currencies or anything like that.

I will be updating this as questions come in, but this should be a good start!

 

keithsoulasa,

If that were the case, it could be covered in a carefully worded EULA. No, Unity wants to jump on board and milk it. As they say... "be able to build a business on this",

 

I still don't understand what Unity is offering? Can't see any reason why we would need more than Unity is offering with their regular license. Unity wont be handling anything concerning gamecalculations anyway. It just needs to be able to read a message from the serverplatform thats all which it already is able to do? Seems more like an oppertunity to milk some extra cash from gambling companies and thus an incentive for those companies to not use Unity? Strange move that creates badwill for UT and a possible loss of quite a large number of sales

 

Feel much better after reading that blog post.

The biggest worry was unity getting on the wrong side of the law by knowing about gambling happening using there engine and it gets used for illegal gambling and they get caught up in the mess. By requiring anyone who wants to use unity for any type of momentary gambling that is regulated by any country to use a separate license that should contain conditions and checks to make sure what they are doing is ok and legal and protects unity from any problems that are hidden from it.

This is the problem with countries and internet companies is how you can get in trouble even if your not in the country or deal directly with anything in that country but because some of your customers live there and that country applies some of its laws on to you.

One new thing that country's are interested with is taxation and how they can tax internet companies that do business with people living in those countries even if the company itself is not biased or involved with that country itself. Keep an eye out for that.

 

Really, you make more fuss about that matter than necessary.

Unity is a corporation. So yes, they look for new opportunities to make money. I see nothing wrong here.
Nobody complaints, that they charge extra for console development, but when they charge extra in a field where a lot money is involved, it is wrong?

I also don't get some people here with their moral issue. UT does not sell firearms to african child soldiers, or hard drugs.
And someone mentioned the adult diaper thing. That is a really silly example. Do you know how many people are addicted to video games, crapping in their pants because they don't want to miss a chance in their MMO,'s? There are even people that die because they play games non-stop for several days.
Better stop with games development then.

 

Well derr!

Console development requires a huge amount of work on Unity's side, and is a completely separate product - otherwise it simply won't work. With gambling however, they took an existing product, prevented it from being used by changing EULA, and decide to charge for 'additional resources' apparently regardless of whether or not you need them.

What's preventing them for doing the same with any other app? Sorry, you use micro-transactions, sorry your app is used in the business world... we need to hire in a specialist team and charge you more.

The problem isn't so much what they are or aren't going to do... but that as a developer I have difficulty understanding how they think - and therefor it makes my life considerably more difficult.

 

What if you work it like:
1. Player buys virtual currency
2. Player gambles with virtual currency
3. Player cashes out virtual currency for real money...

 

Ok, you got me here.
However, I see that as a isolated case and I highly doubt, that they would do the same to other fields like micro-transactions. If so, it would result into a huge costumer loss. That's for sure.

 

You should read David's post above...