Search Unity

  1. All Pro and Enterprise subscribers: find helpful & inspiring creative, tech, and business know-how in the new Unity Success Hub. Sign in to stay up to date.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dismiss Notice

Unity Updates to our Terms of Service and New Package Guidelines

Discussion in 'Announcements' started by LeonhardP, Nov 4, 2020.

  1. LeonhardP

    LeonhardP

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2016
    Posts:
    2,532
    Hi everybody,

    We wanted to let you know that we are updating our Terms of Service, effective December 4, 2020, to introduce the Unity Package Guidelines for packages made available within the Unity Editor.

    Why are we doing this now?

    We have seen a growing number of third parties, including vendors, misusing packages to mass distribute their products and services from within the Unity Editor without necessary quality controls. Unchecked, this will potentially compromise the Unity ecosystem with products or services that capture data without appropriate controls, inject unwanted functionality in users’ projects, or that will misrepresent themselves as being Unity built, sanctioned or supported. This circumvents the protections provided to Unity and our users via the authorized channels (e.g., the Unity Asset Store, Verified Solutions Partners) and the various agreements that govern use of Unity products and services.

    With these new Package Guidelines and the Terms of Service update, it is our intent to provide more transparency and trust around what is provided within the Unity Editor.

    We want to give you insights into the principles we used to drive the Package Guidelines.

    Our principles
    • Open. We believe Unity users should be free to choose the products and services they want, including ones that are competitive to those offered by Unity. Unity users can also distribute their own or third party packages to their direct and indirect teams, provided the packages comply with the new Package Guidelines. Third parties (including vendors of products or services competitive to Unity’s) can, and very often do, use Unity’s Asset Store to distribute to Unity users. Additionally, these third parties can make their packages available via their own channels (e.g. website, GitHub, etc.).
    • Fair. We work hard to bring you best-in-class products and this requires investment. Having third party vendors circumvent our authorized channels and business models, such as the Unity Asset Store and programs such as Verified Solutions Partners, compromises our ability to re-invest in our products and services to serve you.
    • Safe. We will protect our community from being misled by unauthorized vendors who are using the editor as a marketing channel. This potentially compromises the Unity ecosystem with products and services that may be harmful, capture data without appropriate controls or misrepresent themselves as being Unity built, sanctioned or supported.
    You can see the updated Terms of Service and the new Package Guidelines. All package creators using the Unity Editor as a distribution platform have 30 days to comply with these new guidelines.

    If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us at terms@unity3d.com.
     
  2. Favo-Yang

    Favo-Yang

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Posts:
    453
    Hi @LeonhardP,

    Favo from the OpenUPM. Thanks for posting the renewed TOS and the new Package Guidelines. As the largest open-source UPM distribution platform, we would like to help protect Unity's interests as well as our community's benefits.

    The TOS and the new Package Guidelines changes are important for everyone who contributes to the package economics, even you just want to contribute to the open-source community like us, you should read them carefully. These terms will draw a clear line about what is allowed and what is banned.

    I'm working with other Unity employees to help me understand and clarify the TOS and the Guidelines. My goal is to make sure that our users can continue to use the OpenUPM and related tools under these rules without confusion. And help the community (mostly the package authors) to be ready for the changes. As said in the announcement, we have 30 days to process these. Details will be posted later.

    I certainly appreciated Unity for creating such a great platform. On the other side, I and the community together have contributed thousands of hours to make the UPM economics system better, to enhance Unity as a better platform. I hope in the end, we are all happy about the result.

    Stay safe, stay tuned.

    BR
    Favo
     
  3. starikcetin

    starikcetin

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2017
    Posts:
    284
    @Unity

    If you force asset store usage through legal terms, that is going to backfire.

    Make asset store as technically comfortable to use as the package system, and you will have a fair competition.

    Just a friendly reminder.
     
  4. nehvaleem

    nehvaleem

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    Posts:
    126
    I second that. Asset Store is great but I try to avoid it at all costs... unless there is a package version of the assets. Not being able to distinguish my own assets from 3rd party and how it messes up the project structure, difficulty with updates, and so on really makes the Asset Store pain to use.
     
  5. NagaChiang

    NagaChiang

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2020
    Posts:
    12
    Hi @LeonhardP,

    I have some questions to ask. Just want to make sure my understanding is right.


    About the conditions that the guidelines don't apply:

    1. Do I have to follow the guidelines if I host my package on the GitHub and let users install via git?

    2. Do I have to follow the guidelines if I setup my registry (e.g. Verdaccio) and instruct users to install packages through my scoped registries?


    Regarding to the guidelines:

    A.

    1. Can I create a premium package that only my subscribers can use it on commercial titles?

    2. Can I create a package that enable certain IAP service in the user's game?

    B.

    1. Can I create a package that enable Google Analytics in the user's game?

    D.

    1. Can I create a package that change the rendering settings in the project settings by clicking a button?

    2. Can I create a package that add a scoped registry into their project by clicking a button?

    3. Can I create a package that add other optional package dependencies to enable more features in this package by clicking a button?

    4. Can I create a package that automatically add define symbols programmatically to the project in order to avoid compile errors?


    Thanks!

    Best,
    Naga
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2020
  6. oscarAbraham

    oscarAbraham

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Posts:
    75
    Hi, I have some questions. I realize that they might sound a bit silly, but I'd really appreciate some answers. I'd rather be safe than sorry. Thanks in advance for your time.

    Could you clarify what does it mean to "directly or indirectly leverage the Unity Editor as a marketing or distribution platform"? Does it include public GitHub packages that support using the Package Manager to download instead of users manually downloading and putting the package in their project?

    Does it mean that an UPM compatible package in GitHub that adds runtime support for an analytics API like those from Google or Steam is prohibited?

    Also, what does a "Package that induces a person to buy or subscribe to products or services" entail? Does it include, for example, a package that adds support for an external service with a paid tier, even if said service is not advertised? Does it it include a GitHub package that needs a paid plugin to work, even if that plugin is not advertised in the editor?

    Some answers in these regards would bring me some peace of mind, one way or another. Thanks again for taking the time to read this, I honestly appreciate it.
     
  7. javierbullrich

    javierbullrich

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2020
    Posts:
    6
    I have a question regarding one of my packages: https://openupm.com/packages/dev.bullrich.package-updater/

    This package breaks one the following guideline:
    What the package does is it brings a UI to update all the packages at once. Is my UI not an oficial Unity Editor UI? Am I breaking the law by using Unity's API for package updating? Will I receive a Notice and Takedown request?
     
    firstuser, gillemp and Favo-Yang like this.
  8. brunocoimbra

    brunocoimbra

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Posts:
    597
    I think as the user need to click on a button inside the Unity Editor and it is very explicit about what it does, it seems to fit the guidelines.
     
  9. Baste

    Baste

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Posts:
    5,467
    It's pretty explicit:

    "
    The Package Guidelines apply to you anytime you directly or indirectly leverage the Unity Editor as a marketing or distribution platform for Packages, other than via the Unity Authorized Channels (governed by their own terms and guidelines).

    Some examples of when the Package Guidelines don't apply:
    • These Package Guidelines do not apply to you when you host Packages on GitHub for Unity users to download and put the Packages in their projects, as long as the hosted Package does not, directly or indirectly, leverage the Unity Editor as a marketing or distribution platform.

    • These Package Guidelines do not apply to you when you host Packages on your own website for Unity users to download and put the Packages in their projects, as long as the hosted Package does not, directly or indirectly, leverage the Unity Editor as a marketing or distribution platform.

    • These Package Guidelines do not apply to you when you distribute Packages via the Unity Asset Store, in which case the Asset Store Terms and Asset Store Submission Guidelines apply, as long as the Package does not, directly or indirectly, leverage the Unity Editor as a marketing or distribution platform. "

    So, actual examples of when this applies would be stuff like
    - making an in-editor asset store competitor
    - making an in-editor UPM browser
     
    NagaChiang likes this.
  10. Favo-Yang

    Favo-Yang

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Posts:
    453
    A quick update for the OpenUPM and the Unity new terms.
    Apparently, the discussion/negotiation needs more time to make sure the process smoother. OpenUPM and Unity signed a document that brings us three more months on the table. It grants OpenUPM owned, controlled, or hosted
    packages, a total of three months through February 4, 2021, to comply with the Package Guidelines.
    I will keep you posted when we have more progression. Stay tuned.
     
  11. Deozaan

    Deozaan

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Posts:
    705
    Or else what?

    I don't get it. How is this even enforceable? What's going to stop someone from hosting their own packages on GitHub or wherever, even if they reject/ignore the guidelines and use the editor for marketing or advertising? What authority does Unity have over anyone else's git repository?

    I guess that's why they're called guidelines rather than rules?
     
  12. momo_the_monster

    momo_the_monster

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2014
    Posts:
    16
    I'd love to get some clarity on a few things, considering a new Package Management tool we're developing for our platform:
    • Can a custom Editor Window Add, Remove and Update packages via scripting if they're explicit about their actions and Initiated by the user? For example, we want to allow a user to download our newest SDK from a button press, and add it to their project with another press. We're currently doing this via UnityEditor.PackageManager.Client.Add(localPath) after downloading, but this could be in violation of Guidelines under part D3: "You add, update or modify installed Packages on behalf of the user outside the official Unity Editor UI, such as programmatically through scripts."
    • Can we allow browsing of available packages if they're all free? Creators make free things that we'd like to make available to other creators via a searchable listing, but this could be in violation of Guidelines under part C1: "You cannot create a...platform to...distribute your Packages... to third parties (other than your Designated Users) from within the Unity Editor (shortened with ellipses to highlight our use case). Are "Designated Users" our creators who are working with our SDK or only people within our organization?
    I appreciate any guidance you can give.
     
  13. LeonhardP

    LeonhardP

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2016
    Posts:
    2,532
    Hi everybody,

    Some answers to your questions:

    The Package Guidelines do not apply to you when you host a package on GitHub for Unity users to download and manually add the package in their projects, as long as the hosted package does not, directly or indirectly, leverage the Unity Editor as a marketing or distribution platform.

    The Package Guidelines do not apply to you unless you distribute your package from within the Unity Editor to others outside of your designated users.

    Yes, provided you do not use the Unity Editor as a marketing or distribution platform for this type of package.

    Yes, provided you do not use the Unity Editor as a marketing or distribution platform for this type of package.

    Yes, provided you do not use the Unity Editor as a marketing or distribution platform for this type of package.

    You cannot harm or mislead users. A package can change the rendering setting if it's clear for the user (package description and opt-in UI flow).

    No. If the package is intended for external distribution beyond your designated users, this use case does not comply with the Terms of Service.

    No. If the package is intended for external distribution beyond your designated users, this use case does not comply with the Terms of Service.

    You cannot harm or mislead users. A package can define additional symbols if it's clear for the user (package description and opt-in UI flow).

    It means that you distribute or enable discovery of packages from within the Unity Editor. For example, by exposing a new storefront in the Editor or sharing a scoped registry with other users to distribute your commercial packages.

    Yes, it could be argued that both of these packages induce a person to buy or subscribe to products or services. Note, however, that they are only prohibited under the Package Guidelines if they are made available from within the Unity Editor.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2021
  14. Favo-Yang

    Favo-Yang

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Posts:
    453
    Hi @LeonhardP, the reply seems conflicted?
     
  15. fherbst

    fherbst

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Posts:
    762
    Thanks for the responses @LeonhardP.

    Here are some more:

    Could you please clarify the following:
    1. Can I create a package that add a scoped registry into their project by clicking a button if I distribute that package via the AssetStore?
    2. Can I create a package that add other optional package dependencies to enable more features in this package by clicking a button if I distribute that package via the AssetStore?
    3. Can I create a package that add a scoped registry into their project by clicking a button if I distribute that package via GitHub URL?
    4. Can I create a package that add other optional package dependencies to enable more features in this package by clicking a button if I distribute that package via GitHub URL?
    To be clear, the question here is "does it count as a distribution platform if I allow users to add content or packages to their project by clicking a button from within a tool I submit to the AssetStore".
    I'm not sure if Unity understands the implications of disallowing that; a lot of things on the AssetStore do that right now, especially the super successful ones (PlayMaker Ecosystem?).
     
    Favo-Yang likes this.
  16. LeonhardP

    LeonhardP

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2016
    Posts:
    2,532
    Thanks for spotting that mistake, I've fixed it. The first answer is correct. Yes, provided you do not use the Unity Editor as a marketing or distribution platform for this type of package.
     
    oscarAbraham and Favo-Yang like this.
  17. oscarAbraham

    oscarAbraham

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Posts:
    75
    Thanks so much for the clarifications. Sorry to bother you again: Am I correct in understanding that a GitHub repository that has a package json file so that users can add it by manually pasting the repository's URL in the package manager, without a scoped registry, is not considered to "leverage the Unity Editor as a marketing or distribution platform".

    For a concrete example, would an open source package in GitHub that adds support for analytics in Steam be blocked from being downloaded with the git url through the package manager?

    Thanks again for your time; it's really appreciated.
     
  18. LeonhardP

    LeonhardP

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2016
    Posts:
    2,532
    Some more answers to your questions:

    A designated user is someone who is affiliated with your entity or a third party contractor who is testing, developing, or operating your project on your behalf. If you use the Unity Editor as a marketing platform for other packages, even if they’re free, then the Package Guidelines apply. You cannot create a store to advertise, distribute, or promote your packages even if they are free.

    If you’re distributing the package via the Asset Store and it does not directly or indirectly leverage the Unity Editor as a marketing or distribution platform, then only the Asset Store Terms and guidelines apply. If it does directly or indirectly leverage the Unity Editor as a marketing or distribution platform, then the Package Guidelines apply. Discovery of software and assets and legal/commercial transactions must always be done outside of the Unity Editor such as on your website or through the Unity Asset Store.
     
  19. fherbst

    fherbst

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Posts:
    762
    This kills:
    • PlayMaker (because of the integrated PlayMaker Ecosystem)
    • Substance in Unity (because of the integrated store)
    • Sketchfab for Unity (because of access to sketchfab assets)
    • Odin (because of references to their non-AssetStore version)
    • any asset that has a free version on the AssetStore and tells you that there's a paid version from within the Editor
    • and hundreds of very successful assets more.
    Have you reached out to these teams and told them their time on the AssetStore is over?

    What about modular assets that explain in-Editor that you can get more modules on the AssetStore? E.g. MicroSplat?
     
  20. Lars-Steenhoff

    Lars-Steenhoff

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Posts:
    2,995
    Playmaker does not use it for marketing, only to provide extentions to playmaker.

    I think that will be safe?
     
  21. fherbst

    fherbst

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Posts:
    762
    I think the language is very clear: "marketing or distribution platform".
    PlayMaker Ecosystem is clearly a distribution platform.
     
    a436t4ataf and Jes28 like this.
  22. Baste

    Baste

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Posts:
    5,467
    @fherbst, as I read it, the "other than via the Unity Authorized Channels" part means that it should be fine to marked or distribute things that lives on the asset store. Odin is also a partner, so they should be fine.

    @LeonhardP, the guidelines uses the term "designated users" a bunch without defining it properly. So it probably should do that, or at least link to some other document that does. If I wanted to be an ass about it, I could argue that I think that everyone that uses the package is my designated user, so the guidelines never apply.

    Also, this part of the guidelines is a bit confusing to me:
    Does this mean these guidelines does not apply if I use the Unity Editor as a marketing or distribution for eg. textures or 3d models?

    Say I create the "buy textures" package, which has a store that sells textures, and then I advertise that package on my own website. As I read it, that's allowed.
    I can also create the "find cool packages" package that lists other packages for download.

    What I cannot do is to offer the "buy textures" package through the "find cool packages" package.

    That's at least how I read it. But from your replies, it seems like that's not the case? So either I'm misreading you, or you're unclear, or the package guidelines are unclear.
     
    fherbst and Jes28 like this.
  23. Baste

    Baste

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Posts:
    5,467
    fherbst likes this.
  24. LeonhardP

    LeonhardP

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2016
    Posts:
    2,532
    I've forwarded your questions and concerns and will get back to you once I have any updates to share.
     
  25. LeonhardP

    LeonhardP

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2016
    Posts:
    2,532
    Designated User is defined in the Unity Software Terms.
     
  26. Baste

    Baste

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Posts:
    5,467
    For anyone else;

     
  27. gillemp

    gillemp

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2015
    Posts:
    71
    Any update?

    I am creating an asset that merges a lot of little features that might improve Unity's workflow and some of them are going to be waaay better if I let the user install proper packages than those made by me.

    Can I create an asset distributed in the Unity's asset store that installs quick search with the click of one button that explains exactly what actions will happen?
    And what about doing the same to add a scoped registry so a package can be added as well?

    I understand why you want to do those changes but removing the possibility of doing those things should not be the answer.
    Instead, you could make it extremely easy (at least to install packages even from other scoped registries, or whatever is considered...) so when done through Unity's API a warning appears to the user quickly explaining the dangers or lack of filtering about to happen.
     
    firstuser likes this.
  28. TCROC

    TCROC

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Posts:
    141
    I just now noticed this update.

    How does this new update apply to open source packages with "donate" buttons? In particular, I'm referring to this clause:

    "A. You cannot make any Package (including via Package update) available from within the Unity Editor to third parties (other than your Designated Users) that, directly or indirectly, advances or is intended to advance the commercial or economic interests of you and/or your affiliated entities. For example:"

    If this is the case, I will have to drop support for the open source projects that I have ported over to UPM.
     
    TotallyRonja likes this.
  29. ErnestSurys

    ErnestSurys

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Posts:
    43
    Sadly those new guidelines force Google to shut down their UPM registry where we could easily manage most of their SDK's.
     
  30. Meatloaf4

    Meatloaf4

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Posts:
    107
  31. firstuser

    firstuser

    Joined:
    May 5, 2016
    Posts:
    129
    Sadly, I'm going to sound like a cranky person but... Can we go back to when Unity treated devs like adults?

    If I want to install a Firebase package and have it install 50 more packages at the click of a button then that's really fully my prerogative, no? Things like that are exactly what make Unity useful and powerful?!

    If I install a package that auto changes my lighting settings that's really on me.

    Why should I be crippled in my workflow to defend against a hypothetical .0001% demographic who is installing random, unvetted packages and have no backup, or whatever is the goal here? Defending noobs vs the internet?


    All the other points in the original post about "third party vendors circumvent our authorized channels and business models" and "unauthorized vendors" I'm just going to leave it unaddressed. It's all too conflated and idk how crippling your package manager helps you solve (what sounds like) occasional legal/transactional problems.


    It definitely undermines my trust more to start playing silly legal games around UPM.

    The fact the Google has to step away from UPM is a perfect recent example of the new terms failing real world users catastrophically. As we were finally seeing some serious traction with packages this direction is extra discouraging.

    Really hoping this isn't the way forward.
     
  32. Thaina

    Thaina

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Posts:
    557
    First, the terms use in this guideline are very jargon. `Designated user` and `Distribution platform` is very ambiguous and you just repeatedly use this ambiguous terms everywhere. Which is disturbing

    Second, Is git dependecies and/or scope registries count as `Distribution platform`? If it is then why is it while `unitypackage` is not? Unity package still leverage unity to extract it right? So is this count as a distribution?

    Third, the whole thing about this term is totally nonsense. It don't actually make unity more open and fair and safe at all. It not fair that you barring analytics system from other services to promote yours and make other people's life harder to use other third party service. It not transparent that you force us to only use your closed source analytics service. And it not make us feel safe that you destroy all other package manager that might do better job than unity UPM

    UPM cannot even declare git dependencies for packages. You still not implement that but you force us to stuck with your UPM is the ultimately arrogant choice
     
  33. firstuser

    firstuser

    Joined:
    May 5, 2016
    Posts:
    129
    Yeah the whole thing read with very "war on terror" rhetoric that said both a lot and nothing of substance at the same time.

    Edit: Just want to be clear this isn't anything against LeonhardP and totally about Unity's approach and roll out of the confusing and cumbersome terms. Thank you so much to LeonhardP for constantly checking back in with more answers and clarity.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2021
    MSP_PatScott and JustAnotherDude like this.
  34. SugoiDev

    SugoiDev

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2013
    Posts:
    349
    Unsure what exactly we could do to improve this.
    It took a very long time for us to have any package management with Unity, and it seems the terms surrounding it are not helping the ecosystem a lot.

    Would a standalone package manager, external to the Unity editor, be okay?
     
    firstuser likes this.
  35. dri_richard

    dri_richard

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Posts:
    146
    @LeonhardP if we can't install packages from a trusted source such as Google, something has gone wrong.
    Installing .unitypackages is time consuming, and upgrading them is error-prone.
    Please find a way to fix this.
     
  36. firstuser

    firstuser

    Joined:
    May 5, 2016
    Posts:
    129
    UPM exists because .unitypackages fail to meet modern needs. Any choices that create a future where .unitypackages are forced to co-exist as a workaround make UPM a failure.
     
  37. stopiccot_onthespot

    stopiccot_onthespot

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2016
    Posts:
    104
    To be honest I never knew about this new Terms of Service until Google decided to drop their UPM registry for Firebase packages. Honestly I still dont care about Terms of Service but going back to unitypackages pisses me off.
     
  38. hlongvu

    hlongvu

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2019
    Posts:
    4
    This is really sad, as if Unity teams never know how devs are struggling to maintain and update third party sdks.
     
  39. unity_9HTK4MxLIQvijg

    unity_9HTK4MxLIQvijg

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2020
    Posts:
    1
    It's very disapointing when Unity just breaks one of its good new mechanisms, because it's obvious evolution for interconnected packages to have some mechanism for centralized installation and update. In result, we're forced to write long instruction how to and in what order to install few packages instead of making nice userflow

    Almost every big SDK for Unity could have a better user experience in case of switching to upm via custom registry (and we were on the way to it), making in it easier to update/maintain, but as I understand with new terms we are just returning to .unitypackage era with those endless cleaning up processes for each update.

    UPM could be a good and modern replacement for outdated .unitypackage mechanisms, where packages can install themselves in any place on your project (some of them are just stopping to work when you try to rearrange them in saome ThirdParty/ folder), but with new policy it will become a place for just small incapsulated code pieces
     
    MUGIK, Haukien, kuanghsin-liu and 4 others like this.
  40. phong-genix

    phong-genix

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Posts:
    128
    Hi Unity. Do you hear your beloved developers crying out there? :(
     
  41. petershtif

    petershtif

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2014
    Posts:
    8
    I can't believe we got bombed like this by Unity. Making our life harder instead of easier. Well "great move" NOT. Well I am properly pissed, this had to be done by a guy that never developed anything in his life.
     
  42. raybarrera-aofl

    raybarrera-aofl

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Posts:
    9
    Very disappointing, but unfortunately not surprising coming from Unity.

    This is very much centralizing game development, the exact opposite of "democratizing" it.

    This literally solves nothing for the end user (because .unitypackage carries all the same risk), and reverts to an outdated way of working with dependencies in the project.

    I hope Unity reverses course on this misguided choice.
     
  43. Vince-Chimp

    Vince-Chimp

    Joined:
    May 28, 2018
    Posts:
    18
    This is very anti consumer. Please let us import whatever the heck we like. We opt-in to google products because they provide the superior X or Y package to your own. And if you are going to block "the easy way". This will not suddenly change our decision, but it will piss us off for taking the easy way away from us.
    Revert this change.
     
  44. MonkeyDevD

    MonkeyDevD

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2018
    Posts:
    11
    Google is shutting down their repo for Firebase because of this.
    This is a major inconvenience for our Company.

    This is a very bad move!

    If you want to invest in products to make them better, do so and people will flock to you.
    But no innovation is being made by limiting the ability to use the editor to it's full potential.
     
  45. XEDORA

    XEDORA

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2015
    Posts:
    1
    I'm extremely disappointed and pissed. I thought UPM will be the future for third-party SDKs. I loved what Google did, it was a good example for developers.

    *.unitypackage is being used for decades for third-party SDKs. Did you check them if they were "fair, open, and safe"? No. Because you can't and will never be able to. There are SDKs having their own download manager for their modules. (e.g. mopub, ironsource). With UPM, devs wouldn't have to do it.

    Why is Unity trying to be the "Apple" of game development?

    Make UPM better (e.g. support for private packages). Using it properly is developers' responsibility.
     
  46. firstuser

    firstuser

    Joined:
    May 5, 2016
    Posts:
    129
    I'm sorry but we can't sit around waiting, this has a huge impact to our daily work. I have a hard time believing that this is the outcome Unity wanted...

    I invoke the name of the good lord himself :) @Joachim_Ante to please seriously reassess these choices internally and provide a final word on what the future looks like for us, so that we can prepare accordingly.
     
  47. Thaina

    Thaina

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Posts:
    557
    2 weeks already for this and no official unity response
     
  48. firstuser

    firstuser

    Joined:
    May 5, 2016
    Posts:
    129
    :rolleyes: How does this stupidity NOT end with Cydia type alternative asset stores / package managers popping up?...

    Unity's asset store and package manager simply suck, there is certainly nothing close to "best-in-class" about either. Unity moved the asset store to UPM and still to this day there is no way to download older versions of assets, for example version 2.1.13 of Odin Inspector.

    So please Unity just stay out of our way.

    There is a pattern here of announcing things proudly on stage once a year @ Unity Unite and then 2/3/5 years later whatever you announced materializes as some crippled pre-alpha quality garbage held together by community enthusiasm and duct tape.

    Unity know this and have heard this before but now I'm joining the group of pissed off people re-iterating it.

    Intentional or not, this legalese is a huge middle finger to the community that has been patching together Unity's spaghetti products and services for a decade. We've already given Unity a lot of trust, basically on credit, through multiple sketchy launches.

    None of this makes any sense at all:

    "We believe Unity users should be free to do whatever they want as long as it's exactly how we want them to do it."

    Cool -_-

    "When our products and services fall short and are not competitive we make less money because you choose alternatives, but instead of focusing on meeting your needs we're just going to try preserve our position through a change in legal terms."

    At this point I think most devs would pay a premium to avoid tools that are Unity built, sanctioned or "supported" lol. Every time you acquire a third party asset I cry inside.

    Pull your heads out of the sand.
     
  49. Vanilla-Plus

    Vanilla-Plus

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Posts:
    41
    Started having a second look into Firebase today only to find out that their scoped registry is being closed soon and they cited this exact thread, lol.

    UPM is excellent and something Unity has needed for ages. I set up my own scoped registry earlier this year and haven't looked back. Unity should absolutely be concerned about quality control and security but the final responsibility for that is always going to be in the hands of the developers. Any other kind of package/SDK/framework distribution method will have the same risks.

    Heck if Unity is really worried about it, make the creation and curation of scoped registries a Unity Cloud product. I'd happily sign in to the dashboard to review and upload packages.
     
    rebelincontrol likes this.
  50. LeonhardP

    LeonhardP

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2016
    Posts:
    2,532
    Hi everybody,

    To follow up on some of the open questions:

    No, standalone open source projects on GitHub are outside of the scope of the Terms of Service. The only exception would be if the GitHub project were itself to violate the Terms of Service by modifying the Editor behavior in such a way to introduce a new distribution system into the Editor.

    You are allowed to sell a texture package from your own website and use the Package Manager to install those textures but you are not allowed to let users discover new textures they haven't already purchased from within the Unity Editor.

    You are not allowed to seek donations or perform commercial transactions from within the Unity Editor (which includes the Package Manager). You are however allowed to seek donations from your own website, through our Asset Store or through other 3rd party portals that you may be using to allow Unity users to discover your offerings. For more information on how to promote your offerings on the Asset Store, please visit https://unity3d.com/asset-store/sell-assets.

    No. The Package Guidelines state: "You [cannot] add, update or modify installed Packages on behalf of the user outside the official Unity Editor UI, such as programmatically through scripts."
     
unityunity