Are they trying to make it out as if Epic is the knight in shining armor that came out of nowhere... I'm 100% sure that they've had meetings for months before this until they reached an agreement.
Actually according to Tim Sweeney it all went down really fast.
My point is that everything is probably fake. They've been talking for months probably. No one just does that nowadays, especially with all the money that's involved.
That's just tin foil-hatting since there's no evidence to support the claim. Why not just take things at face value? O.o
Sometimes things just are what they are.
At face value, it mostly looks like Improbable is trying to spite Unity and Epic is along for the ride to benefit.
Are they trying to make it out as if Epic is the knight in shining armor that came out of nowhere... I'm 100% sure that they've had meetings for months before this until they reached an agreement.
Actually according to Tim Sweeney it all went down really fast.
My point is that everything is probably fake. They've been talking for months probably. No one just does that nowadays, especially with all the money that's involved.
That's just tin foil-hatting since there's no evidence to support the claim. Why not just take things at face value? O.o
Sometimes things just are what they are.
True - some things are just what they are.
However businesses and what they tell the public is rarely just what it is.
So skepticism should always be the first reaction if it a business related public announcement
Yeah, well be that as it may, if I were sitting there reading the news of the split and I saw the opportunity to make a profit, look the hero, and possibly forward my field of endeavor, I would jump on it. Especially if I had the monetary clout and business sense Sweeny has.
You think you have the inside knowledge of the game industry, well I have a degree and life experience in business, no matter the reason, Sweeny made a very smart decision here and none of it feels premeditated. Only time will tell on that.
The current situation is not premeditated, it is opportunistic. However, this is also not the first time that Epic has had discussions about converting products to their services. This just presents an opportunity for both publicity, as well as increased business going forward. The money spent on this is not a 100% loss, as much of this can be used to convert other products in the future, and that the more developer friendly this option is, the more growth they will see going forward. This is simply an investment in future revenue, at a time when they are cash flush... to ensure that they have good cash flow in the future, when this may not be true.
"Me and another company came up with a way to give away 25mil to help other companies go open source and completely bypassed finance and legal"
-Kris Kringle
The legal and finance teams will have been a phone call away - and could very easily ave been involved in the live editing of the agreement. Not to mention the fact that pretty much everyone involved in managing stuff should have - as a minimum - enough legal and finance knowledge to know when to call in the specialists.
Are they trying to make it out as if Epic is the knight in shining armor that came out of nowhere... I'm 100% sure that they've had meetings for months before this until they reached an agreement.
Actually according to Tim Sweeney it all went down really fast.
My point is that everything is probably fake. They've been talking for months probably. No one just does that nowadays, especially with all the money that's involved.
That's just tin foil-hatting since there's no evidence to support the claim. Why not just take things at face value? O.o
Sometimes things just are what they are.
At face value, it mostly looks like Improbable is trying to spite Unity and Epic is along for the ride to benefit.
Yep Epic's Unreal engine won't suffer if Unity takes a hit. Especially as a SpatialOS GDK was released last October (and available for a year in beta before that).
"Me and another company came up with a way to give away 25mil to help other companies go open source and completely bypassed finance and legal"
-Kris Kringle
The legal and finance teams will have been a phone call away - and could very easily ave been involved in the live editing of the agreement. Not to mention the fact that pretty much everyone involved in managing stuff should have - as a minimum - enough legal and finance knowledge to know when to call in the specialists.
with is all the time, don't matter what you think, a lot of decision have a process to be to happen, and its a bussiness its never on good will, its always PR and the gains they can net, if you belive on anything else i bet you don't have any bussiness or was even the boss on something, if you did or you bankrupt or is going to be soon, I saw a lot of people fail his bussiness for a lot of reason and the ones who did good, did take a series of processes to make things go smooth, and the bigger the place the bigger the process to take, nothing is made over a day, too much thing to work on, unless of course in a week or 2 they toss a side note of several changes to this declaration with most media outlets will not report.
also open source was a thing till micrsoft start to push his directx tools for devs, then it become saturated and had a lot of problems, but most devs was too lazy and was not interested in investing on training and learning new ways to do things, then steam is trying to make vulcan a thing, but since its been a long time since I heard anything about it i'm guessing it idn't work as well, since well most people are lazy, and since most games out now are lazy on ideas, I can bet theya re not willing to learn or change
Regardless of Epic's involvement, and Sweeney is definitely in this as a cutthroat business politician, not some charitable donor helping out the little guy...
All that comes from this, for me, is that Improbable sounds like a bunch of real scummy, underhanded douchebags who:
breached Unity's terms and knew about it for 6 months to a year
didn't warn their user base even though they knew they were about to lose their license
followed up by launching a borderline libelous smear-campaign and trying to rally a mob against Unity to strongarm them. This works because many people on the internet already have an anti-Unity sentiment for little reason, but, hey, it's the cool thing to do.
They sound like a real classy group.(read as: classless)
As far as Unity's faults go, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to charge Improbable a higher third-party licensing fee than some lesser-known services, which is probably why Improbable took issue.
Multi-million - or put another way - 2-3 days Fortnite earnings.
Epic know what they are spending on advertising. Epic want to promote their store, attract indies. This does both and costs not a lot.
If they had been in discussion for months they could have simply said: "we have been in discussion for months about this and this seems to be the right time to announce it".
They gain nothing by lying about this and run the risk of being outed as a liar! Its not as though they are standing for election.
If Epic is being owned by a single person I can see how 25 mil can be "given" with a flick of finger, but Epic is a company and every cent gets looked over and voted and 25 mil is 25 mil even if they make it in an hour.
They obviously can't reveal that they've been working on this deal for months because there could be a lot of law issues.
Imagine you just bought WoW which is PC only game and you've invested 2 months now of playing(using) the game and it turns out that for months the company has been preparing to move to Console... how would you feel? Baring in mind the financial loses lawsuit for monetary loses is the least of the issue here.
I know a bit of a dumb example, but honestly I don't really care much about this.
Whether they have been working on this for half a year or they did the deal while taking a piss it's irrelevant to me. I just pointed out what's the more realistic thing and that's 25 mil doesn't get given away just like that especially from a company. From an individual, sure it's possible, from a company with shareholders where every cent gets 10 people looking over it... yeah right.
Multi-million - or put another way - 2-3 days Fortnite earnings.
Epic know what they are spending on advertising. Epic want to promote their store, attract indies. This does both and costs not a lot.
If they had been in discussion for months they could have simply said: "we have been in discussion for months about this and this seems to be the right time to announce it".
They gain nothing by lying about this and run the risk of being outed as a liar! Its not as though they are standing for election.
If Epic is being owned by a single person I can see how 25 mil can be "given" with a flick of finger, but Epic is a company and every cent gets looked over and voted and 25 mil is 25 mil even if they make it in an hour.
1. The 25mil is a joint venture between epic and improbable 2. We don't know the structure of epic games so yes he could very well be able to do that on a whim.
Unity must urgently clarify their terms or unsuspend our licenses.
Currently the lack of clarity in the Terms of Service for Unity - and the ambiguity created by their subsequent statements - places us and developers in a difficult situation. We urgently need clarity in order to move forward. Everyone requires a long term, dependable answer from Unity on what is and is not allowed, in a documented legal form.
More broadly, developers are asking about other services, not just Improbable’s. This urgently needs resolution.
We do not require any direct technical cooperation with an engine provider to offer our services - Crytek, Epic and all other providers clearly allow interoperability without commercial arrangement with cloud platforms. We have no formal technical arrangements there and have not required any with Unity for years.
Our preference would be that Unity simply adopts industry standard practice and allows platforms to host the engine as was the case before the change in Terms of Service. Failing that, Unity must grant Improbable sufficient legal basis to protect its existing customers, or be honest with the community about the situation.
We now hope Unity will seek to engage with us to solve this issue.
Unity must urgently clarify their terms or unsuspend our licenses.
Currently the lack of clarity in the Terms of Service for Unity - and the ambiguity created by their subsequent statements - places us and developers in a difficult situation. We urgently need clarity in order to move forward. Everyone requires a long term, dependable answer from Unity on what is and is not allowed, in a documented legal form.
More broadly, developers are asking about other services, not just Improbable’s. This urgently needs resolution.
We do not require any direct technical cooperation with an engine provider to offer our services - Crytek, Epic and all other providers clearly allow interoperability without commercial arrangement with cloud platforms. We have no formal technical arrangements there and have not required any with Unity for years.
Our preference would be that Unity simply adopts industry standard practice and allows platforms to host the engine as was the case before the change in Terms of Service. Failing that, Unity must grant Improbable sufficient legal basis to protect its existing customers, or be honest with the community about the situation.
We now hope Unity will seek to engage with us to solve this issue.
Has Unity hotlinked them to their EULA yet?
Also gotta address their statement here; "We do not require any direct technical cooperation with an engine provider to offer our services..."
This claim is dependent on the part of one's services you are talking about. When a third party system is taking over the entire networking layer of the engine and developers are shunted into relying on the security and standards of the third party to be in-line with the standards of the engine and in-house development they are working with, then there is direct cooperation and guidelines generally involved.
If all you are doing is using them for is certain components that don't directly touch upon such things.
You are not escaping this with any engine that is sold with an as-a-service type license. This includes the Unreal Engine, in regards to their recent partnership.
Multi-million - or put another way - 2-3 days Fortnite earnings.
Epic know what they are spending on advertising. Epic want to promote their store, attract indies. This does both and costs not a lot.
If they had been in discussion for months they could have simply said: "we have been in discussion for months about this and this seems to be the right time to announce it".
They gain nothing by lying about this and run the risk of being outed as a liar! Its not as though they are standing for election.
If Epic is being owned by a single person I can see how 25 mil can be "given" with a flick of finger, but Epic is a company and every cent gets looked over and voted and 25 mil is 25 mil even if they make it in an hour.
They obviously can't reveal that they've been working on this deal for months because there could be a lot of law issues.
Imagine you just bought WoW which is PC only game and you've invested 2 months now of playing(using) the game and it turns out that for months the company has been preparing to move to Console... how would you feel? Baring in mind the financial loses lawsuit for monetary loses is the least of the issue here.
I know a bit of a dumb example, but honestly I don't really care much about this.
Whether they have been working on this for half a year or they did the deal while taking a piss it's irrelevant to me. I just pointed out what's the more realistic thing and that's 25 mil doesn't get given away just like that especially from a company. From an individual, sure it's possible, from a company with shareholders where every cent gets 10 people looking over it... yeah right.
I understand your point but:
1. We don't know that other people within the company were not consulted. There was lots of time for this - if indeed it was needed. That said:
2. The way that companies work is that people in the management structure have different levels of financial authorisation. Some won't be able to authorise anything!
Someone though has to able to authorise expenditure. You can't go to the shareholders everytime you want to spend $50 on a copy of WoW!
Such sign-offs though are always done within a framework. With people knowing when they need to seek approval at the next level up - which ultimately is whoever owns the company. And maybe for very large amounts you may need more than one person to OK the expenditure. As an example though I have authorised a lot more than $25M - like I said though there was a process and I was the "management" cog in that process.
Nor is the $25M being given away. Yes they are setting up a fund but I am sure there will be hoops that developers need to go through - maybe sell the game on the Epic store for the first year say - whatever.
So since - as I said above - since: - they gain nothing by lying about this; - would take a hit to their reputation if they were found to be lying; - telling the truth costs them nothing; I see absolutely no reason not to believe them.
Yes I know its difficult when Pantsonfire lies about 10 times a day but not everyone does.
"Me and another company came up with a way to give away 25mil to help other companies go open source and completely bypassed finance and legal"
-Kris Kringle
The legal and finance teams will have been a phone call away - and could very easily ave been involved in the live editing of the agreement. Not to mention the fact that pretty much everyone involved in managing stuff should have - as a minimum - enough legal and finance knowledge to know when to call in the specialists.
with is all the time, don't matter what you think, a lot of decision have a process to be to happen, and its a bussiness its never on good will, its always PR and the gains they can net, if you belive on anything else i bet you don't have any bussiness or was even the boss on something, if you did or you bankrupt or is going to be soon, I saw a lot of people fail his bussiness for a lot of reason and the ones who did good, did take a series of processes to make things go smooth, and the bigger the place the bigger the process to take, nothing is made over a day, too much thing to work on, unless of course in a week or 2 they toss a side note of several changes to this declaration with most media outlets will not report.
<snip>
Not 100% sure what you are getting at. What - I suggest - you are missing is how fast companies - even big companies - can act.
The people involved - how many depends on the size of the company - will be immersed in the issues: costs, risks, the competition, strategy, potential rewards, aims and aspirations, cultural issues in a potential new market, communication strategies ..... and so on. Stuff that will be discussed & reviewed at various meetings on some periodic basis. (What stuff and how many people are involved - varies.)
For me its very easy to imagine the following coming up when they set up the Epic Store - especially as they said they spent 5 years doing it! Question: "How can we get more developers to come to the Epic store" gets raised. Maybe at an Opportunity & Investment meeting! Answer 1: Charge less! Possible answer 2: Set up a development fund.
Now neither of us know that this came up. Take it from me though that it is precisely the type of question that will - will - have been raised in one of those processes you talk about. Processes that give management the background to make - seemingly - snap decisions.
I love the idea of the Epic store but I feel they are trying to position themselves as the white hat here. I just don't buy it. The reduced cut from devs is more about getting people to sell on their platform so they can actually get content - would be my guess.
This reminds me of Snowden. . . does anyone believe Russia let him hide out there because they believe if freedom of information
I love the idea of the Epic store but I feel they are trying to position themselves as the white hat here. I just don't buy it. The reduced cut from devs is more about getting people to sell on their platform so they can actually get content - would be my guess.
This reminds me of Snowden. . . does anyone believe Russia let him hide out there because they believe if freedom of information
There are a lot of people confusing open engine and services with "open source" and "works with various operating systems". What they want is the freedom to use 3rd party software, their own servers, utilize the cloud, and distribute their product using any source without asking Unity for permission. The way the EULA is worded Unity could forbid developers from selling on Epic's platform or Steam.
Are they trying to make it out as if Epic is the knight in shining armor that came out of nowhere... I'm 100% sure that they've had meetings for months before this until they reached an agreement.
Actually according to Tim Sweeney it all went down really fast.
My point is that everything is probably fake. They've been talking for months probably. No one just does that nowadays, especially with all the money that's involved.
That's just tin foil-hatting since there's no evidence to support the claim. Why not just take things at face value? O.o
Sometimes things just are what they are.
At face value, it mostly looks like Improbable is trying to spite Unity and Epic is along for the ride to benefit.
You would too.
Essentially this came about from the Unity's (ies?) Terms of Service having a clause of allowing them to change the Terms of Service at any time. To then change that clause to stomp down on an established an established competitor (Improbable) after unity decided to adopt a Live/Cloud Service model for the future.
This is after Improbable has decided to toss out their old JavaScript hook/head (which also why Chronicles of Elyria is no longer SpactialOS), in favor of further supporting Unity as a compatible engine. Which represents thousands upon thousands of hours of development for Improbable's time.
Improbable has had massive levels of positive support even before this shenanigan has started up. You need to remember that Worlds Adrift has been in development for years(Improbably and Bossa both have very strong links with each other), not just the 6 months to 1 year that Unity is claiming.
Personally I'm hoping it goes to court. Magically appendable Terms of Service really really need to get shot down with how anti-consumer they are (and are virulent with how Microsoft/Google/Facebook abuse them), let two well funded corporations impale themselves on the court system for it.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
If I'm reading the EULA @Torval linked correctly, the inability to freely distribute the source code for the engine disqualifies it as true open source.
From the EULA (emphasis mine):
"There is no restriction on your Distribution of a Product made using the Licensed Technology that does not include any Engine Code . . .
. . . Distribution to end users - You may Distribute the Licensed Technology incorporated in object code format only as an inseparable part of a Product"
Definition of open source is that the source code may be shared freely. Per OpenSource.org:
"The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."
(Guidelines listed on that site derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which is consistent with the article Torval linked)
LOL
It was in that last thread that i mentioned why Epic's Unreal became so good and popular was because they were hiring third party vendors to improve their own product.Well it didn't take Epic very long to do at it again,this is why they have been such a huge success story for years now.
Are they trying to make it out as if Epic is the knight in shining armor that came out of nowhere... I'm 100% sure that they've had meetings for months before this until they reached an agreement.
Actually according to Tim Sweeney it all went down really fast.
My point is that everything is probably fake. They've been talking for months probably. No one just does that nowadays, especially with all the money that's involved.
That's just tin foil-hatting since there's no evidence to support the claim. Why not just take things at face value? O.o
Sometimes things just are what they are.
At face value, it mostly looks like Improbable is trying to spite Unity and Epic is along for the ride to benefit.
You would too.
Essentially this came about from the Unity's (ies?) Terms of Service having a clause of allowing them to change the Terms of Service at any time. To then change that clause to stomp down on an established an established competitor (Improbable) after unity decided to adopt a Live/Cloud Service model for the future.
This is after Improbable has decided to toss out their old JavaScript hook/head (which also why Chronicles of Elyria is no longer SpactialOS), in favor of further supporting Unity as a compatible engine. Which represents thousands upon thousands of hours of development for Improbable's time.
Improbable has had massive levels of positive support even before this shenanigan has started up. You need to remember that Worlds Adrift has been in development for years(Improbably and Bossa both have very strong links with each other), not just the 6 months to 1 year that Unity is claiming.
Personally I'm hoping it goes to court. Magically appendable Terms of Service really really need to get shot down with how anti-consumer they are (and are virulent with how Microsoft/Google/Facebook abuse them), let two well funded corporations impale themselves on the court system for it.
Oh geesus you have no idea how many times i have thought about this subject and how scummy it is.I simply cannot believe how LAZY the courts/laws are in making change the entire game industry,it is setup right now where the laws protect the developers but not the consumers at all.
Being able to make change to a TOS in a video game is total scum.Soi the VAGUE coverage of the law is to make sure they give you notice,like 24-48 hours...wtf is notice going to do for we the consumer?I just ran into this vey problem with Skylines,they want to do whatever they want with my personal information or i can't play the game if i don't agree.Developers are doing this already making total BS claims of not selling or sharing your information they only now make sure to give you "notice" because the EU says they must and could cause them a huge lawsuit where by the gamer they couldn't care less.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
If I'm reading the EULA @Torval linked correctly, the inability to freely distribute the source code for the engine disqualifies it as true open source.
From the EULA (emphasis mine):
"There is no restriction on your Distribution of a Product made using the Licensed Technology that does not include any Engine Code . . .
. . . Distribution to end users - You may Distribute the Licensed Technology incorporated in object code format only as an inseparable part of a Product"
Definition of open source is that the source code may be shared freely. Per OpenSource.org:
"The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."
(Guidelines listed on that site derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which is consistent with the article Torval linked)
...you really how no idea what is going on here and it's funny how you still try to lecture me
The bit about open source is just Torvals plug, a plug that incorrectly describes how open source works(nothing to do with platform sw is running on) neither it is relevant to current topic since Improbable nor Epic are promoting open source sw.
If I'm reading the EULA @Torval linked correctly, the inability to freely distribute the source code for the engine disqualifies it as true open source.
From the EULA (emphasis mine):
"There is no restriction on your Distribution of a Product made using the Licensed Technology that does not include any Engine Code . . .
. . . Distribution to end users - You may Distribute the Licensed Technology incorporated in object code format only as an inseparable part of a Product"
Definition of open source is that the source code may be shared freely. Per OpenSource.org:
"The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."
(Guidelines listed on that site derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which is consistent with the article Torval linked)
...you really how no idea what is going on here and it's funny how you still try to lecture me
The bit about open source is just Torvals plug, a plug that incorrectly describes how open source works(nothing to do with platform sw is running on) neither it is relevant to current topic since Improbable nor Epic are promoting open source sw.
He could not be more off...
You'll notice I added the "if I'm reading this correctly," indicating what follows is merely my reading and comparing the definition to what the EULA says. I'm not a lawyer, nor are you as far as I know, yet only one of us is acting like a pompous asshole about the conversation.
Yet again, you struggle to look like anything more than a troll, even when I attempt to engage you in a completely neutral manner. Well done.
Comments
If Epic is being owned by a single person I can see how 25 mil can be "given" with a flick of finger, but Epic is a company and every cent gets looked over and voted and 25 mil is 25 mil even if they make it in an hour.
They obviously can't reveal that they've been working on this deal for months because there could be a lot of law issues.
Imagine you just bought WoW which is PC only game and you've invested 2 months now of playing(using) the game and it turns out that for months the company has been preparing to move to Console... how would you feel? Baring in mind the financial loses lawsuit for monetary loses is the least of the issue here.
I know a bit of a dumb example, but honestly I don't really care much about this.
Whether they have been working on this for half a year or they did the deal while taking a piss it's irrelevant to me. I just pointed out what's the more realistic thing and that's 25 mil doesn't get given away just like that especially from a company. From an individual, sure it's possible, from a company with shareholders where every cent gets 10 people looking over it... yeah right.
2. We don't know the structure of epic games so yes he could very well be able to do that on a whim.
Improbable has issued a "final statement" about SpatialOS & Unity:
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also gotta address their statement here;
"We do not require any direct technical cooperation with an engine provider to offer our services..."
This claim is dependent on the part of one's services you are talking about. When a third party system is taking over the entire networking layer of the engine and developers are shunted into relying on the security and standards of the third party to be in-line with the standards of the engine and in-house development they are working with, then there is direct cooperation and guidelines generally involved.
If all you are doing is using them for is certain components that don't directly touch upon such things.
You are not escaping this with any engine that is sold with an as-a-service type license. This includes the Unreal Engine, in regards to their recent partnership.
1. We don't know that other people within the company were not consulted. There was lots of time for this - if indeed it was needed. That said:
2. The way that companies work is that people in the management structure have different levels of financial authorisation. Some won't be able to authorise anything!
Someone though has to able to authorise expenditure. You can't go to the shareholders everytime you want to spend $50 on a copy of WoW!
Such sign-offs though are always done within a framework. With people knowing when they need to seek approval at the next level up - which ultimately is whoever owns the company. And maybe for very large amounts you may need more than one person to OK the expenditure. As an example though I have authorised a lot more than $25M - like I said though there was a process and I was the "management" cog in that process.
Nor is the $25M being given away. Yes they are setting up a fund but I am sure there will be hoops that developers need to go through - maybe sell the game on the Epic store for the first year say - whatever.
So since - as I said above - since:
- they gain nothing by lying about this;
- would take a hit to their reputation if they were found to be lying;
- telling the truth costs them nothing;
I see absolutely no reason not to believe them.
Yes I know its difficult when Pantsonfire lies about 10 times a day but not everyone does.
Keep hatin on your local companies that aren't sold to Chinese, keep hatin on Apple, Google, Amazon etc
China will profit !!
The people involved - how many depends on the size of the company - will be immersed in the issues: costs, risks, the competition, strategy, potential rewards, aims and aspirations, cultural issues in a potential new market, communication strategies ..... and so on. Stuff that will be discussed & reviewed at various meetings on some periodic basis. (What stuff and how many people are involved - varies.)
For me its very easy to imagine the following coming up when they set up the Epic Store - especially as they said they spent 5 years doing it!
Question: "How can we get more developers to come to the Epic store" gets raised. Maybe at an Opportunity & Investment meeting!
Answer 1: Charge less!
Possible answer 2: Set up a development fund.
Now neither of us know that this came up. Take it from me though that it is precisely the type of question that will - will - have been raised in one of those processes you talk about. Processes that give management the background to make - seemingly - snap decisions.
You would lose your bet by the way
You almost sound happy about that.
This reminds me of Snowden. . . does anyone believe Russia let him hide out there because they believe if freedom of information
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
This is after Improbable has decided to toss out their old JavaScript hook/head (which also why Chronicles of Elyria is no longer SpactialOS), in favor of further supporting Unity as a compatible engine. Which represents thousands upon thousands of hours of development for Improbable's time.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
From the EULA (emphasis mine):
"There is no restriction on your Distribution of a Product made using the Licensed Technology that does not include any Engine Code . . .
. . . Distribution to end users - You may Distribute the Licensed Technology incorporated in object code format only as an inseparable part of a Product"
Definition of open source is that the source code may be shared freely. Per OpenSource.org:
"The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."
(Guidelines listed on that site derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which is consistent with the article Torval linked)
It was in that last thread that i mentioned why Epic's Unreal became so good and popular was because they were hiring third party vendors to improve their own product.Well it didn't take Epic very long to do at it again,this is why they have been such a huge success story for years now.
Oh geesus you have no idea how many times i have thought about this subject and how scummy it is.I simply cannot believe how LAZY the courts/laws are in making change the entire game industry,it is setup right now where the laws protect the developers but not the consumers at all.
Being able to make change to a TOS in a video game is total scum.Soi the VAGUE coverage of the law is to make sure they give you notice,like 24-48 hours...wtf is notice going to do for we the consumer?I just ran into this vey problem with Skylines,they want to do whatever they want with my personal information or i can't play the game if i don't agree.Developers are doing this already making total BS claims of not selling or sharing your information they only now make sure to give you "notice" because the EU says they must and could cause them a huge lawsuit where by the gamer they couldn't care less.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The bit about open source is just Torvals plug, a plug that incorrectly describes how open source works(nothing to do with platform sw is running on) neither it is relevant to current topic since Improbable nor Epic are promoting open source sw.
He could not be more off...
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Yet again, you struggle to look like anything more than a troll, even when I attempt to engage you in a completely neutral manner. Well done.