Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

UPDATED - Unity Pulls Licensing from SpatialOS, Unity Responds to Allegations

2

Comments

  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,823
    Gdemami said:
    Same to you. ;)
    SpatialOS is Improbable. They just announced a joint multimillion dollar funding project with Epic to create an open source engine for developers to leave Unity behind.

       
    You: UNet is shit.
    Me: You don't have to use UNet with Unity.
    You: UNet is shit.

    Yeah.....
    Yet even Unity developers have nuked UNet? To try and create UNet 2.0?

    hhmm seems even they have issues developing a working netcode for their engine. But the answer is to just write your own? If that is the case why even use the engine to begin with? 

    Stay in your lane G ;)

    GdemamiTorval

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,687
    Stay in your lane G ;)

    Yep, there is no point talking to you since you lack elementary understanding of sw development. Just not your lane indeed...
    blueturtle13
  • SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,126
    Guys, stay on topic.

    Another interesting update about Epic partnering with Improbable to lure devs to the Unreal Engine:

    https://venturebeat.com/2019/01/10/epic-improbable-create-25-million-fund-to-transition-devs-away-from-unity/

    To assist developers who are left in limbo by the new engine and service incompatibilities that were introduced today, Epic Games and Improbable are together establishing a $25 million combined fund to help developers transition to more open engines, services, and ecosystems,” Sweeney and Narula wrote. “This funding will come from a variety of sources including Unreal Dev Grants, Improbable developer assistance funds, and Epic Games store funding.
    blueturtle13GdemamirojoArcueidTorval


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,823
    SBFord said:
    Guys, stay on topic.

    Another interesting update about Epic partnering with Improbable to lure devs to the Unreal Engine:

    https://venturebeat.com/2019/01/10/epic-improbable-create-25-million-fund-to-transition-devs-away-from-unity/

    To assist developers who are left in limbo by the new engine and service incompatibilities that were introduced today, Epic Games and Improbable are together establishing a $25 million combined fund to help developers transition to more open engines, services, and ecosystems,” Sweeney and Narula wrote. “This funding will come from a variety of sources including Unreal Dev Grants, Improbable developer assistance funds, and Epic Games store funding.
    This is the best thing that could have happened to be honest. Unity started as a more open source project. It has become something else entirely.  

    “Democratizing the game development” I think David said. 

    Now that seems to be shifting to others to carry that torch.  
    SBFordGdemamigervaise1Torval

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • LokeroLokero Member RarePosts: 1,513
    edited January 11

    The whole situation reads to me like improbable is just a bunch of software geeks with no comprehension of legalese and that they really need to hire someone to handle that end of the business.

    It's like they're pissing on Unity and begging them not to sue them at the same time :lol:

    "We know we ignored your terms and then tried to drag your name through the mud and turn your customers against you for our crusade... our bad.  But, you guys are wrong and should see things our way.  But... you guys are great... please don't take us to court.  We know it's a bit late, but someone please rescue us from a lawsuit!"

    The more they say, the more there is to use against them, should the matter go to court.
    MendelLimnicCaffynated
  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,823
    Lokero said:

    The whole situation reads to me like improbable is just a bunch of software geeks with no comprehension of legalese and that they really need to hire someone to handle that end of the business.

    It's like they're pissing on Unity and begging them not to sue them at the same time :lol:

    "We know we ignored your terms and then tried to drag your name through the mud and turn your customers against you for our crusade... our bad.  But, you guys are wrong and should see things our way.  But... you guys are great... please don't take us to court.  We know it's a bit late, but someone please rescue us from a lawsuit!"

    The more they say, the more there is to use against them, should the matter go to court.
    Actually it sounds more like Improbable played Unity 

     
    Gdemami

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • LimnicLimnic Member RarePosts: 1,116
    SpatialOS is one of the larger and more cohesive package solutions to netcode, multiplayer gaming/matchmaking, and third-party platform partners for Unity, but it was and is far from the only one. Them burning bridges like this just means others solutions will take their place.

    The fallout with them doing that $25 million fund is likely to impact Unity, but one would hope there is enough people with reason to see through the spite.

    A big thing for this to me is still wanting to know exactly what it was in Unity's EULA that Improbable was in breach of, for Unity to have pulled their partnership.
    gervaise1
  • KlingaKlinga Member UncommonPosts: 7

    Limnic said:

    SpatialOS is one of the larger and more cohesive package solutions to netcode, multiplayer gaming/matchmaking, and third-party platform partners for Unity, but it was and is far from the only one. Them burning bridges like this just means others solutions will take their place.

    The fallout with them doing that $25 million fund is likely to impact Unity, but one would hope there is enough people with reason to see through the spite.

    A big thing for this to me is still wanting to know exactly what it was in Unity's EULA that Improbable was in breach of, for Unity to have pulled their partnership.



    It’s preatty straight forward actually. With current Unity licencing model you can host servers for your own games/products, but if you want to host a “service” i.e. provide service for other companies, you need a servicing deal - obviously, which is a common practice across industry.

    Unreal licence already covers a service-like product, because it’s revenue based. Improbable is playing a victim card here, when in fact they knew since 2 years already their business model was violating the EULA, and in result was actually selling counterfeit product.

    Gdemamigervaise1Caffynated
  • LimnicLimnic Member RarePosts: 1,116
    edited January 11
    Klinga said:

    Limnic said:

    SpatialOS is one of the larger and more cohesive package solutions to netcode, multiplayer gaming/matchmaking, and third-party platform partners for Unity, but it was and is far from the only one. Them burning bridges like this just means others solutions will take their place.

    The fallout with them doing that $25 million fund is likely to impact Unity, but one would hope there is enough people with reason to see through the spite.

    A big thing for this to me is still wanting to know exactly what it was in Unity's EULA that Improbable was in breach of, for Unity to have pulled their partnership.



    It’s preatty straight forward actually. With current Unity licencing model you can host servers for your own games/products, but if you want to host a “service” i.e. provide service for other companies, you need a servicing deal - obviously, which is a common practice across industry.

    Unreal licence already covers a service-like product, because it’s revenue based. Improbable is playing a victim card here, when in fact they knew since 2 years already their business model was violating the EULA, and in result was actually selling counterfeit product.

    That was not the question I posed. Doesn't really address anything I said either, you just repeated things I'd actually said on the first page.

    I asked what of the EULA was Improbable violating, as that was the unclear factor. Repeating that they violated the EULA does not clarify that at all.
    Gdemami
  • jarsku85jarsku85 Member UncommonPosts: 77
    Well Epic didn't hesitate at all, they are making more open engine than UE4 or Unity together with Improbable and help those devs who got screwed by Unity to convert their games from Unity to this new engine :)
  • LimnicLimnic Member RarePosts: 1,116
    jarsku85 said:
    Well Epic didn't hesitate at all, they are making more open engine than UE4 or Unity together with Improbable and help those devs who got screwed by Unity to convert their games from Unity to this new engine :)
    There really aren't any devs "screwed up by Unity" by what Unity has thus-far done. The only caveat being if Improbable chooses to suspend support and development of SpatialOS and it's services for Unity, and leave everyone that is using it dead in the water themselves.

    Unity already said people that are already using it, for released titles and in-dev titles, can still use it. It's at the user's discretion and Improbable's discretion at this point for what it means to the users.
    Gdemami
  • lahnmirlahnmir Member EpicPosts: 2,822
    edited January 12
    Lokero said:

    The whole situation reads to me like improbable is just a bunch of software geeks with no comprehension of legalese and that they really need to hire someone to handle that end of the business.

    It's like they're pissing on Unity and begging them not to sue them at the same time :lol:

    "We know we ignored your terms and then tried to drag your name through the mud and turn your customers against you for our crusade... our bad.  But, you guys are wrong and should see things our way.  But... you guys are great... please don't take us to court.  We know it's a bit late, but someone please rescue us from a lawsuit!"

    The more they say, the more there is to use against them, should the matter go to court.
    Actually it sounds more like Improbable played Unity 

     
    This, very much this. Improbable threw out some insinuating “news” and after the fallout swept in to pick up the pieces and look the hero. They played Unity hard.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    Gdemami
    'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'

    Kyleran on yours sincerely 


    But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.

    Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,687
    edited January 12
    Limnic said:
    I asked what of the EULA was Improbable violating, as that was the unclear factor.
    ...he just told you.
  • LimnicLimnic Member RarePosts: 1,116
    Gdemami said:
    Limnic said:
    I asked what of the EULA was Improbable violating, as that was the unclear factor.
    ...he just told you.
    "...their business model was violating the EULA..." does not tell you anything. It does not describe what element of their business model nor what part of the EULA was being violated, so it gives no real sense to scale of the issue either beyond the fact that whatever it was, it was enough for Unity to finally give up on Improbable. 
    Gdemami
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,687
    Limnic said:
    "...their business model was violating the EULA..." does not tell you anything. It does not describe what element of their business model nor what part of the EULA was being violated, so it gives no real sense to scale of the issue either beyond the fact that whatever it was, it was enough for Unity to finally give up on Improbable. 
    Oh dear... He said it explicitely, you just need to read:
    Klinga said:
    It’s preatty straight forward actually. With current Unity licencing model you can host servers for your own games/products, but if you want to host a “service” i.e. provide service for other companies, you need a servicing deal - obviously, which is a common practice across industry.
    The 'full' story by Improbable then can be found here:
    https://improbable.io/company/news/2019/01/11/improbable-a-final-statement-on-spatialos-and-unity
  • LimnicLimnic Member RarePosts: 1,116
    edited January 12
    Gdemami said:
    Limnic said:
    "...their business model was violating the EULA..." does not tell you anything. It does not describe what element of their business model nor what part of the EULA was being violated, so it gives no real sense to scale of the issue either beyond the fact that whatever it was, it was enough for Unity to finally give up on Improbable. 
    Oh dear... He said it explicitely, you just need to read:
    Klinga said:
    It’s preatty straight forward actually. With current Unity licencing model you can host servers for your own games/products, but if you want to host a “service” i.e. provide service for other companies, you need a servicing deal - obviously, which is a common practice across industry.
    The 'full' story by Improbable then can be found here:
    https://improbable.io/company/news/2019/01/11/improbable-a-final-statement-on-spatialos-and-unity
    The quote you used does not explicitly say anything. Improbable had a deal and was a Unity approved partner, they were one, and then lost their standing because of a violation of the EULA according to Unity.

    Improbable didn't even mention that in their final statement, they just claim they were not in violation and blame the recent change instead.

    The best you got is a "he said she said" situation, and neither tell you what in terms of service or EULA was violated, just that Unity says they were in violation and Improbable says they weren't.

    For the flipside statement to what Improbable said, this is still Unity's most recent blog post on the matter;
    https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improbables-blog-post-and-why-you-can-keep-working-on-your-spatialos-game/

    "More than a year ago, we told Improbable in person that they were in violation of our Terms of Service or EULA. Six months ago, we informed Improbable about the violation in writing. Recent actions did not come as a surprise to Improbable; in fact, they’ve known about this for many months."

    This does not say what they were violating in the ToS or EULA, nor does Improbable's post.

    EDIT: If you wish to say that you believe it's related to the ToS change in that Improbable was packaging the Unity Runtime in with their service, in which case that would then mean Improbable had been packaging and reselling an asset they had a license to use, but not distribute/sell, then I could see that allusion being made by their final statement given Improbable's hyper-focus on the ToS change.

    That would then make Improbable a bunch of idiots, but at least it would be more of a clear point of what they violated.
    Post edited by Limnic on
    Gdemami
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,687
    edited January 12
    Limnic said:
    Improbable didn't even mention that in their final statement.
    They did, you either did not read it or lack comprehension, however making things up or draw false conclusions isn't going to help your cause.

    SpatialOS acts like a service for Unity - it substitutes an engine component(networking) for Unity instead of proprietary Unity tools.

    Improbable stance is/was, that this did not violate Unity EULA, Unity on the other hand considered this breach of ToS and changed their EULA which ruled out use of all 'unapproved' services on new projects.

    A story of what is going on in a nutshell.

    That is why I said it is still being a big deal even for those who can use SpatialOS with Unity legaly, because SpatialOS cannot legaly support them and any further development on both ends, Unity and SpatialOS, is very much uncertain(will happen at same very minimal level)...
  • LimnicLimnic Member RarePosts: 1,116
    Gdemami said:
    Limnic said:
    Improbable didn't even mention that in their final statement.
    They did, you either did not read it or lack comprehension, however making thing up or draw false conclusions isn't going to help your cause.


    SpatialOS acts like a service for Unity - it provides (usually networking) component for Unity instead of proprietary Unity tools.

    Improbable stance is/was, that this did not violate Unity EULA, Unity on the other hand considered this breach of ToS and changed their EULA which ruled out use of all 'unapproved' services on new projects.

    A story of what is going on in a nutshell.

    That is why I said it is still being a big deal even for those who can use SpatialOS with Unity legaly, because SpatialOS cannot legaly support them and any further development on both ends, Unity and SpatialOS, is very much uncertain...
    And to that end, as I noted by even quoting Unity on this matter, the narrative you just claimed is not necessarily even true at all.

    Given Unity makes the statement that Improbable had been in violation of the ToS/EULA for over a year, predating any changes to the ToS' syntax, means the claim that they lost their license because unity changes the ToS nothing but one of a two-sided argument where two different things are being claimed.

    This is also where your continued comment bears a problem since Unity, again, said active titles with SpatialOS can still develop with SpatialOS, and ultimately it's on Improbable for how they choose to support that service going forward. They have the option still, according to Unity, to talk this out and address whatever violation they committed.

    And another note. "Unapproved services" were already unapproved. According to Unity they "In December, we made clarifications to our Streaming and Cloud Gaming Restrictions because we received requests for clarification as the industry is evolving quickly."

    They did not outright change the ToS. They revised it for clarity, to which if it is a problem related to that revised segment then that only indicates Improbable was likely packaging and reselling the Unity Runtime as part of their services, which would have been a big no-no any ways.

    Your story of what was going on in a nutshell is excessively flawed as you are quoting a single source, which happens to be one of the two opposing parties, and taking their word to be true, which given the fact that the opposition claims something else, means a rational mind needs to step back and ask "What's actually accurate here?".

    I'm not going to take a hearsay argument as gospel.
    Gdemami
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,687
    Limnic said:
    And to that end, as I noted by even quoting Unity on this matter, the narrative you just claimed is not necessarily even true at all.
    ....can't help those who do not want to be helped. Enjoy your ignorance!
  • LimnicLimnic Member RarePosts: 1,116
    edited January 12
    Gdemami said:
    Limnic said:
    And to that end, as I noted by even quoting Unity on this matter, the narrative you just claimed is not necessarily even true at all.
    ....can't help those who do not want to be helped. Enjoy your ignorance!
    That's quite the statement of irony coming from you, given my whole point in that post was that you just quoted Improbable's take on things without factoring it against Unity's take on the situation at all.

    IE, you just tried to establish an argument with half or less of the information available.

    That is most definitely an argument from ignorance, especially compared to anything I wrote.

    I mean how do you have the balls to say this; "...however making things up or draw false conclusions isn't going to help your cause."
     As a response to a post where I literally quoted and gave you a link to Unity's own blog post showing their side of the argument and how it differs? How is directly quoting a source "making things up"?

    If you can't even account for the fact that the two sides make two different claims, that consequently means Improbable was in violation of the ToS in different ways depending on which you take to be true, and the subsequent fact that it means you have to figure out which one is being more honest before slapping a conclusion on things, means you cannot be grabbing one hearsay argument and claiming it to be gospel.

    Do you have no concept of due diligence?
    Post edited by Limnic on
    Gdemami
  • KlingaKlinga Member UncommonPosts: 7



    Limnic said:

    ...


    I fail to see where your problem with comprehension is. To reiterate - Improbable is selling service using Unity technology without proper servicing agreement, which is against EULA. They were never Unity’s partner in the first place, they are just customer.

    The fact the try to push their own EULA interpretation in their blog posts, which is against common business sense, won’t change what is actually there from legal perspective. It’s just a PR move from their side.

  • LimnicLimnic Member RarePosts: 1,116
    Klinga said:



    Limnic said:

    ...


    I fail to see where your problem with comprehension is. To reiterate - Improbable is selling service using Unity technology without proper servicing agreement, which is against EULA. They were never Unity’s partner in the first place, they are just customer.

    The fact the try to push their own EULA interpretation in their blog posts, which is against common business sense, won’t change what is actually there from legal perspective. It’s just a PR move from their side.

    "Unity approved partner" is a term for people who are approved for leveraging Unity and the Unity Runtime as a platform.

    Your reiteration, is not a statement from Unity who was intentionally vague. Improbable also did not single that out to be the problem, though their focus on that part of the ToS in their criticism does make it the reasonable assumption. To that end, it's actually likely the problem is that they were packaging the Unity Runtime as part of their third party hosting services, which means they were functionally repackaging a Unity asset for sale. That's more than a simple lack of service agreement, it's a breach of property rights.

    But that's the thing right there. It's an assumption. It's also one that is contested, again, by the fact that there's two different claims made, and I am not going to bias towards one side or the other without additional information that has not been provided.
    Gdemami
  • DvoraDvora Member UncommonPosts: 493
    eh give it up Limnic, you're wrong and just making yourself look silly.
  • LimnicLimnic Member RarePosts: 1,116
    edited January 12
    Dvora said:
    eh give it up Limnic, you're wrong and just making yourself look silly.
    Referencing what's actually written by Unity and Improbable isn't wrong.

    Claiming someone is without merit, and using conjecture as a counterargument, is.
    An argument isn't magically right because you agree with an opinion, facts have to factor in there too.
    Gdemami
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,657
    lahnmir said:
    Lokero said:

    The whole situation reads to me like improbable is just a bunch of software geeks with no comprehension of legalese and that they really need to hire someone to handle that end of the business.

    It's like they're pissing on Unity and begging them not to sue them at the same time :lol:

    "We know we ignored your terms and then tried to drag your name through the mud and turn your customers against you for our crusade... our bad.  But, you guys are wrong and should see things our way.  But... you guys are great... please don't take us to court.  We know it's a bit late, but someone please rescue us from a lawsuit!"

    The more they say, the more there is to use against them, should the matter go to court.
    Actually it sounds more like Improbable played Unity 

     
    This, very much this. Improbable threw out some insinuating “news” and after the fallout swept in to pick up the pieces and look the hero. They played Unity hard.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    I mentioned earlier this was about money and control. Two greedy parties are trying to get the most money and control they can. They took it too far and essentially broke their relationship because now working together means compromises neither seems willing to make.

    Unity should never have put ridiculous protections in its licensing. I do not and will not support that sort of business protectionism through licensing and patents. It says the product is less than what is being sold. That is Unity has horrible weaknesses and instead of getting better they chose to protect those flaws through the law to the detriment of their customers. Unity wants the revenue that could be lost to Improbable but don't have a solution anywhere near as robust, if they have something at all.

    Improbable is completely opportunistic and took advantage of that situation, which they knew would be a PR fiasco. They're no saints either.

    And then you have Epic, well positioned to benefit from these situations and public opinion. Gamers want to believe in something good so they take that PR and run with it. I've seen so many posts hoping Blizzard will "break off" from Activision just like Bungie did. Many posts thinking Epic is going to right wrongs and give them something Valve, EA, Microsoft, and Sony aren't. Nothing is going to change except some names because the environment hasn't changed.
    Gdemami
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
Sign In or Register to comment.