Search Unity

  1. Unity 6 Preview is now available. To find out what's new, have a look at our Unity 6 Preview blog post.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity is excited to announce that we will be collaborating with TheXPlace for a summer game jam from June 13 - June 19. Learn more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Dismiss Notice

Official Update to the Unity Editor Software Terms

Discussion in 'Announcements' started by LeonhardP, Nov 6, 2023.

  1. DragonCoder

    DragonCoder

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2015
    Posts:
    1,753
    Exactly the opposite is the case. If they had a call-home system, there'd be no need for a data model. It would be just counting...
    Also this is something people would see immediately thanks to Windows firewall.

    Edit:

    Right, I was also suspect of that number, having had 30 days in mind as well.

    @liquify is just a troll as it turns out.
     
    andreiagmu likes this.
  2. Unifikation

    Unifikation

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2023
    Posts:
    1,104
    No... in order to model the data model you need one stream of representative data that can then be extrapolated (modelled) onto the whole.

    So at least one of the platforms must permit Unity to gather some information about installations, and continue to do so, whilst at some other point in time they must have had some insights into the installs relative to that data stream from all other platforms.

    What we can be reasonably sure of is that they're not going to be getting that data stream from Apple's stores and installs due to the rather more stringent terms and monitoring of and by Apple.

    The issue is this: are they going to tell us where they're getting their representative data from that they then extrapolate and/or model from?
     
  3. my_little_kafka

    my_little_kafka

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Posts:
    92
    retired_unity_saga likes this.
  4. MiTschMR

    MiTschMR

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2018
    Posts:
    522
    No, we will need to self report. Read the FAQ… https://unity.com/pricing-updates
     
  5. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,988
    Sure:

    2019 TOS https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/TermsOfService/blob/a99de88/Unity Software Additional Terms.md

    (this was there up until April 2023, at which point they silently removed it)

    Current TOS: https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/TermsOfService/blob/master/Unity Software Additional Terms.md

    Again, this is just theater. The TOS is there so Unity can bully you, it can't really protect us and this isn't any different from what they removed before and then tried to hide without a second thought.
     
  6. gordo32

    gordo32

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2023
    Posts:
    146
    andreiagmu likes this.
  7. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,988
    And if we don't they'll grab analytics data, if you use their analytics, and if you don't they'll make some S*** up.
     
  8. altepTest

    altepTest

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Posts:
    1,170
    Your license found at this link has a major flaw big as a house.

    https://unity.com/legal/editor-terms-of-service/software

    defines Unity Software as being a "Tool" which means under the copyright law that the ownership of the Output created with this tool belongs to the person or company that used the tool to create that Output.

    So the copyright on a Game is owned by those that have created the game.

    It is clear till this point?

    Ok

    then same license defines Unity Runtime as being part of Unity Software, so Unity Runtime is a Tool by your definition.

    Because of this you can't claim part of the revenue of the game because you don't have any claim on the copyright of the game. You don't own the game as a whole or in part.

    So your runtime fee is not enforceable.

    Which explains the

    Self Reporting part.

    You can't legally claim money from a game developer but if they give you the money because they chose to do so, well, no one will say no to free money, I'm I right or I'm right?
     
    DrMeatball and Unifikation like this.
  9. Amon

    Amon

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Posts:
    1,384
    Well, I would think that they would have to if you challenged the figures that their data shows.

    If for instance unity provided me with data that shows install counts for a game and I say prove that data, will they supply proof and how they collected it?
     
    retired_unity_saga likes this.
  10. my_little_kafka

    my_little_kafka

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Posts:
    92
    Oh, so it was right there all along, thanks.
    I'm not strong in Legalese, but I start to think more and more that they literally can't provide us with an assurance that they will not change the terms again, stealthily, unless they use some popular enforcable license like MIT's, which they will never use. So we just need to trust them, which became pretty difficult lately.
    Wonder if Unreal Engine's (I know how moderators love to see us talk about it or Godot) EULA could be refracted with such ease as well, should Epic Games consider to do so.
     
  11. retired_unity_saga

    retired_unity_saga

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2016
    Posts:
    296
    Every day, I learn more things about Unity.

    Uhh...

    I firmly believe the self-reporting is simply to verify their own data. Penalizing you should you underreport.
     
  12. retired_unity_saga

    retired_unity_saga

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2016
    Posts:
    296
    Hey, about this, is any of this legal when unity themselves use third party drivers (direct x, EULA asset store code, your own source), Unity "runtime", is it true, SDK? Is it?? It seems to be a IDE of some kind, which is a tool. Actually, it seems to be a integrated upper level API obfuscating access to lower level source.

    What is the Unity "Runtime"? I can't see the source code.
     
    Unifikation likes this.
  13. t-ley

    t-ley

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2017
    Posts:
    77
    This forum seems to only exist cause of the user’s answering questions and not anyone from Unity and if they do answer it’s a threat saying you are a hijacker or wait for your question to be answered from the community. You would think they would be kinder to us users, I find it offensive to be called any name other than what the user name says
     
    Unifikation likes this.
  14. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    10,307
    The runtime is the DLL that grants access to those drivers, not the drivers themselves. It is what the editor builds to make your game actually play, which also includes how it's loading files, how gameplay logic is executed, everything like that.
     
  15. retired_unity_saga

    retired_unity_saga

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2016
    Posts:
    296
    Ah! Now it all makes sense.

    We are paying a fee for the user to utilize a commercialized lib file that we depend on for our game to function.

    Yeah.

    I dunno though this makes it even worse trying to count installs, they did away with this idea? It sounds insane.
     
    andreiagmu likes this.
  16. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    10,307
    They'll still be counting installs, especially if you don't self report. And we have no idea how their metrics work because they've openly said that the method they use to do this is proprietary so they just can't tell us.

    https://twitter.com/unity/status/1701689241456021607

    Of course, this is bullshit. They absolutely could tell us and should, but if they don't, that means they have the negotiation power in the situation.
     
  17. bnmguy

    bnmguy

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2020
    Posts:
    137
    You didn't read or you didn't understand what you read.
     
  18. UhOhItsMoving

    UhOhItsMoving

    Joined:
    May 25, 2022
    Posts:
    107
    The "game," in this case, refers to the product you distribute, not your intellectual property. Because the product does contain Unity content (the "Unity Runtime") they can legally charge a fee or royalty on it, but only it and not your intellectual property (e.g. they cannot charge a royalty on versions of your game made in another engine).

    Also, from that same page:
    This document is literally *them* granting *you* the right to distribute *their* software (the "Unity Runtime") in *your* project. So legally, I don't see how they can't charge for it.

    I'm not trying to convince you whether to like it or not, just that it is legal (but you can always ask a lawyer).
     
    andreiagmu likes this.
  19. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,988
    Yes, we know, Unity is pretty much telling us we don't own the games we make any more. What an asshole move.
     
  20. TheOtherMonarch

    TheOtherMonarch

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Posts:
    894
    That is not true Unity does phone home. They will phone home with Legacy Unity Analytics/Unity Gaming Services Dashboard Analytics or Unity gaming service networking. If you do not provide them with numbers they will use those numbers.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2023
  21. UhOhItsMoving

    UhOhItsMoving

    Joined:
    May 25, 2022
    Posts:
    107
    I mean... with Unreal Engine:
    "Even just a little" means that if you use merely a few lines of code or one function from the Unreal Engine source code in any product (not "game," but "product"), then your entire product is now subject to the Unreal Engine royalty. So, I think the same can be said about Unreal Engine, too...
     
    TheSmokingGnu and andreiagmu like this.
  22. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    21,680
    Unreal Engine's license agreement is a great example of a license agreement because it doesn't leave you wondering what they're trying to say. You're told what you own and what they own. There is no ambiguity.
     
  23. COLLABERcool

    COLLABERcool

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2023
    Posts:
    3
    Unity editor version 2019 was worth $190 on the stock market. Will we be able to use the 2019 version of unity once again as it is no longer available. The only versions of unity available that do not have the pay per install system were notably different in startup time and general performance, especially regarding changes to scripts and wait times, to the 2019s version of unity.

    Is it the case that the 2024 version of unity will be the best version of unity, and worth the potential risk of being successful, or is it the case that the 2024 version of unity is continuing to lose performance and inflate start up times.

    The reason I ask is because it is worded so that it sounds fairer than it actually is. If the current versions of unity are the worst versions of unity, this next version of unity is going to go back to a higher valued version of unity? Such as 2019? Or is the next version of unity just more of the current version with lots of things getting in the way.
     
    Ruslank100 and andreiagmu like this.
  24. UhOhItsMoving

    UhOhItsMoving

    Joined:
    May 25, 2022
    Posts:
    107
    https://unity.com/legal/terms-of-service (Ironically, also Section 6.)
    Is that not clear?

    But anyway, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. The point was that if you include any of their code in something completely Unreal-ated (see what I did there) to Unreal Engine, they will still charge you the full royalty like it's an Unreal Engine product. If @AcidArrow is going to say "Unity is pretty much telling us we don't own the games we make any more" for charging a fee/royalty for including a the entire "Unity Runtime" in a Unity game, what does he have to say about Epic Games charging you a higher royalty for using any amount of Unreal Engine's source code ("even just a little") in a non-Unreal Engine product. Is that not also an "asshole move"?
     
    TheSmokingGnu and andreiagmu like this.
  25. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    21,680
    No. It's overly complex. The main problem with an exhaustive list of what you do and don't own is that it may not cover everything that it needs to cover. For example look at that list and point out to me where it says "scripts" or "code". Because I don't see a statement in there that says you own the scripts you wrote to make your game work.

    Maybe you could cover it under "files" but then why have things like meshes, models, images, etc if you're just going to start with a blanket statement? It's just too ambiguous and it feels like it's that way to confuse people.
     
  26. UhOhItsMoving

    UhOhItsMoving

    Joined:
    May 25, 2022
    Posts:
    107
    All in bold:
     
    TheSmokingGnu likes this.
  27. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    21,680
    You're assuming that's what those cover. Why can't it just say "your code"?
     
  28. COLLABERcool

    COLLABERcool

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2023
    Posts:
    3
    c3154bb2473b3ecaefa0bd6aff428c1687d1c4eb_2_1380x754.png

    I must say. In the time it took unity to produce a follow up statement which we all hoped the pay for install would be removed entirely. In the time it took. I was able to make my own engine. Do my own matrix, make my own camera rotate reposition and move in that matrix. Project to screen resolution. Apply light. And create materials. Rasterize quads
    f8bfd5b1926f776dec74968b2a2a74b80c19eeef_2_1380x750.png

    So all in all thank you for the offer and for the statement. But I will be declining.
     
  29. UhOhItsMoving

    UhOhItsMoving

    Joined:
    May 25, 2022
    Posts:
    107
    I'm not: that's literally what "scripts" and "code" fall under, especially "other content," which is pretty open itself.

    I could just as well say you're assuming you're protected under the Unreal Engine EULA even though it doesn't explicitly say "code", either. The thing is, Unreal Engine's EULA is written in reverse: instead of saying what you do own, they say what you don't. I, myself, think that's better, too, but it's not like Unity's isn't clear, either.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2023
    TheSmokingGnu and andreiagmu like this.
  30. Splitting schedule:
    - Monday: pea for Mom, she is cooking soup
    - Tuesday: sea for that dude who also big fan of bush-fires and invented tablets
    - Wednesday: hair for the unity forum over EULA definitions...
     
  31. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    21,680
    You are but it's completely irrelevant what we think because ambiguity in a license agreement is a bad thing. If it includes those then it should state it otherwise they should take the same approach as Unreal Engine. If I have to hire a lawyer (or contact support) to understand a legal agreement then it's a badly written legal agreement.
     
  32. COLLABERcool

    COLLABERcool

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2023
    Posts:
    3
    You shouldn't over think it.

    Unity is sticking to its guns. It's just lowered the bar slightly. 200k

    The two corporate game engine companies are not your friend. And they are the only examples of businesses in the world that solely depend on this method of profit in exchange for the supply of a editor.

    You can compare apples to apples, they are the same apple. But you can't compare them to anything but eachother. Both of them are going to exploit you because both of them have big families of workforce. The new idea is a bad idea. But it is the idea that is continuing to manifest as a reality.

    Well. If unity provide a game engine for this price and sets an apparent standard into what is acceptable to give up to them when you use their software. Then it shouldn't be too hard for competitors to emerge to offer more reasonable services.
     
  33. UhOhItsMoving

    UhOhItsMoving

    Joined:
    May 25, 2022
    Posts:
    107
    Actually, I would say I am, as it, in fact, is not explicitly stated, so I have to infer (assume) based on what is there.
    Honestly, them listing examples just comes off as a "including, but not limited to" list, but them not having "code and scripts" in there, I would agree, is an oversight, especially considering this is a game engine.

    Edit:
    I agree, but Unity's wording is not ambiguous to me. Redundant/wordy? Sure. Ambiguous? No. But that's just to me.
    Well, that's exactly why we have lawyers: not everyone interprets things the same way, so a lawyer is there to help you understand it correctly.
    I do agree Unreal's wording is better, too.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2023
  34. hopeful

    hopeful

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2013
    Posts:
    5,706
    My two cents ... which are the same two cents as from before this whole "I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further" situation ... publish the 2023 LTS without the add-on from 2024. Make 2024 a separate tech stream instead of trying to shoehorn it in, in an ugly way, forcing the delay of a LTS by a year.
     
    Ryiah and Unifikation like this.
  35. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,988
    I’m sorry, I forgot that every time I say something about Unity I should also immediately also talk about Unreal, otherwise any argument I make is instantly invalid.
     
    Amon and Unifikation like this.
  36. TheOtherMonarch

    TheOtherMonarch

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Posts:
    894
    That is not the way the legal system works. Contracts need to be clear. A good lawyer can convincingly argue in front of an 80-year-old judge and or octogenarian jury of illiterate pumpkins that code / scripts is not covered.

    A good contract should be a single self-contained document. Not this web designed to ensnare.
     
  37. UhOhItsMoving

    UhOhItsMoving

    Joined:
    May 25, 2022
    Posts:
    107
    If you want to support your statements, consider elaborating on them when questioned instead of deflecting to another argument nobody made. Also, the question still stands.
    What's not the way the legal system works? I simply said that the "User Content" terms were not ambiguous to me, hence, why I italicized "me" and said "But that's just to me." I never said anything about how the legal system works.
    Yes, but my point is that the "clarity" (i.e. the interpretation) of something can be different for each person who's reading it, hence, why I said:
    For some people, a rule plainly stated is not enough, and for others, a rule explained to intricate detail is too much.
    And a good lawyer can convincingly argue that code & scripts are covered. Good lawyers are just that: good lawyers. But, I guess the implication is that Unity has better lawyers than the users, so Unity wins?
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2023
  38. TheOtherMonarch

    TheOtherMonarch

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Posts:
    894
    Again, this is not how the legal system works, what you believe is irrelevant. I have written contracts before. I always write them to favor my organization and provide maximum protection. Unity does the same, giving themselves maximum protection and the customer minimum protection.

    I am not a lawyer, but I do have two semesters of business law and have written several legal documents. Not because I wanted to but because I was the only person available. Personally, when I have written contracts, EULAs, NDAs or other licensing agreements, I always try to spell out the minute details. Just so that nothing is ambiguous which could cause misunderstanding in the future. The objective should be to not become involved in a legal battle. When I write a contract, I always include a clause “This is the entire Agreement…”

    This is not how Unity does things, they have chosen to leave everything vague and if a misunderstanding arises, they will just use their account managers and lawyers to brutally clarify after the fact your error.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2023
    DrMeatball, Amon, Unifikation and 2 others like this.
  39. UhOhItsMoving

    UhOhItsMoving

    Joined:
    May 25, 2022
    Posts:
    107
    I never said that; I never said "the way I interpret them is the way the legal system will," nor did I imply that.
    Ok, then I have a question: Assume that a lawyer does manage to successfully argue that user-created scripts/code are not covered under "User Content." Where, then, in the TOS, would it state who does own them?
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2023
  40. TheOtherMonarch

    TheOtherMonarch

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Posts:
    894
    Unity has extensive automatic regression testing based on uploaded user project bug reports. I don’t think Unity would claim exclusive ownership. More likely they would argue that the uploader allowed Unity to use that code for recession testing and bug fixing. By uploading a bug report the user implicitly agreed to grant Unity a non-exclusive perpetual copyright.

    Unity would argue that this type of recession testing is very costly and benefits their users and that any other system would be impractical.

    Now in the case that the Users project was stolen by a Unity employee then Unity would argue that they take great care to protect their intellectual property. The same level of care they take for all their source code.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2023
    Unifikation and Ryiah like this.
  41. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    21,680
    Wait, you're not discussing it from the perspective of how the legal system will interpret it? Because that's the only perspective that I even remotely care about and have in fact been trying to discuss it from. Personal opinion won't stop a lawsuit.

    Neither of them are my friends but one of them is at least trying to present themselves that way with an easily understood license agreement so I'm much more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt while the other is making it very clear that they don't think of me that way at all.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2023
  42. Unifikation

    Unifikation

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2023
    Posts:
    1,104
    Furthermore, one of them has a lifetime of experience making and releasing games, and clearly articulates sympathies and understanding of the endeavour of its users as a direct result of those experiences.

    The other canned a process that might have revealed the difficulties of using their engine to attain completion and publication.
     
  43. jjejj87

    jjejj87

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    Posts:
    1,117
    Wow, releasing 2023 LTS in 2024 so that it becomes part of the new scam...good move Unity!
     
  44. Mike-Geig

    Mike-Geig

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Posts:
    260
    That is always how we do LTS releases...
     
  45. Mike-Geig

    Mike-Geig

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Posts:
    260
    Howdy everyone, I've read through a lot of these comments. Some of them dig pretty deeply into legalese, so I'm not going to attempt to answer (instead, we've flagged to the legal team to dissect and get answers for you). Instead, all I can offer is my personal thoughts and assurances. If you know me, that may mean something. If you don't, well... Hi, I'm Mike :)

    - Using the vague phrasing of "next major release in 2024" isn't some evil attempt to trick you. We are just leaving the options on naming open. As indicated all over, and even many times in this thread, "2023 LTS" is a confusing name. Debates have been ongoing on how to resolve the confusion. Consider the opposite theory storm if we explicitly stated 2023 LTS and then named it something else

    - I can personally attest that this ToS change is done with the best of intentions. Again, there is no maniacal plan to subvert or abuse our users. The land of legal wording always gets dicey, in my opinion, and in this scenario we all (leadership included) are trying to make things better. Apart from inventing a time machine and changing the past, all we can do is move forward. To the best of my knowledge, we are working to put language into the new ToS that prevents it from being "dropped" or changed on you.

    - Regarding the previous removal of ToS locking and the removal of the Github, a couple things to know. The first is that those two events are not related with each other or the runtime fee announcement in any way. I know that seems like a huge lie from the outside, but having been involved internally, they are completely separate teams, conversations, and timelines. The second thing to know is that there are real, logical, reasons for those two changes that made them seem like good ideas at the time. Obviously, hindsight is a hell of a thing and looking back, I can totally see why it looks the way it does now. Finally, I am not trying to be vague here. I am happy to answer questions about these events, but I'd really rather not kick up another storm here on the forums. There are many, many of you and only a few of us, so it is hard to keep up with all of the conversation. So, if you're happy with that answer then great. If you still find it stranger than fiction, email me (mike at unity.com) and fire away with your questions.

    - Finally, please try to remember that Unity (like any company) is a collection of people. As any collection of people, terms like "good", "bad", "greedy", "noble", etc rarely apply. Certainly, things like the economy may have affected judgments in the short term, but our mission still stands, and the people I work with meet daily trying to figure out ways to fix this. Trust is broken quickly, and takes time to repair. So we need time to repair it.

    Anyway, these are just my "top of mind" thoughts. I always appreciate the passion we all share. Never hesitate to reach out (mike at unity.com) if you have questions or just want to shout at someone :D

    Edit: I should probably also state that, while I won't always respond quickly (I'm fully prepared for my inbox to be filled with spam by tomorrow, lol) I will always respond eventually. If I don't, just ping me again!
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2023
  46. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    21,680
    He's referring to the nonsensical idea that the Unity 2023 (version not year) tech releases are under the old license while the LTS release for the same version number requires the new license. It means anyone that wants to keep to the old license for the time being will be stuck with either a year old LTS or be unable to use LTS.
     
  47. Mike-Geig

    Mike-Geig

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Posts:
    260
    Oh, right. That makes sense. It is a good point. Ultimately, we need to draw a line somewhere and I believe a vast majority of projects are on older versions or LTS.

    Still, it is a good call out, though I am not sure how to remedy
     
    DrMeatball and MadeFromPolygons like this.
  48. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    21,680
    It's as simple as making the Unity 2023 LTS available on the old license with everything else going forward being on the new license.
     
  49. Mike-Geig

    Mike-Geig

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Posts:
    260
    Maybe, but it pushes all changes out by another year. I see how that makes sense, but our tech streams are almost like "betas", where the LTS version is THE version and where new things lock in. It might be a fight worth having internally, and if it is, I will, but I don't think this *actually* affects many users at all. Comparatively, very few users are on the 2023 tech streams with their productions, and I'm not sure it is worth pausing things for a full other year for it
     
    DrMeatball likes this.
  50. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    21,680
    Yes, but on the flip side it means people will actually use it. If I have to choose between the LTS for the new license or an old release with the old license I'll just stick to the old one if I'm able to (current work projects are on the 2021 LTS).